Dmochowski v District Court of Zamosc Second Penal Dision Poland

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8, family and private life rights must be balanced against the United Kingdom’s duty to comply with its treaty obligations. The interference will not be disproportionate merely because the requested person has family ties or has spent time in custody in the United Kingdom. The court must assess the sentence remaining to be served. Where a substantial part remains outstanding, the public interest in extradition may outweigh the Article 8 interests relied upon.

The claimant appealed against an order for his extradition made by District Judge Snow on 20 August 2014. The European Arrest Warrant sought his return to Poland to serve the outstanding parts of two activated suspended sentences for assaults occasioning bodily harm.

The claimant relied solely on his and his mother’s rights to respect for family and private life under Article 8. He argued that his mother required domestic assistance, that he was employed in England, and that time spent in custody meant that only a relatively short period remained to be served in Poland. The central issue was whether extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with those rights.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had concluded that the claimant’s Article 8 rights were significantly outweighed by the United Kingdom’s duty to comply with its treaty obligations. Nothing advanced on appeal justified disturbing that conclusion.
2. The claimant’s family circumstances did not establish disproportionate interference. His mother required some domestic assistance because of problems affecting her joints, but she continued to work, and the claimant’s employment was intermittent. Those facts did not outweigh the public interest in extradition.
3. The period already spent in custody in the United Kingdom was relevant to the assessment of the remaining sentence. The court accepted that it would count as the equivalent of a longer period in England and Wales, and considered the possibility that the Polish sentences might be aggregated and that release might occur after halfway.
4. Even on the assumptions most favourable to the claimant, a substantial part of the sentences remained to be served. This was therefore not a case in which the whole sentence, or all but a very small part, had already been served in the United Kingdom.
5. In those circumstances, extradition was not disproportionate or a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s Article 8 rights. The extradition order therefore stood.

• District Judge: District Judge Snow ordered the claimant’s extradition on 20 August 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.