Lubarski v Regional Court In Bydgoszcz Poland

Extradition will not breach Article 8 merely because it causes hardship to the requested person’s family. The circumstances must disclose a disproportionate interference with family life. Delay arising from complex proceedings, or from the requested person’s deliberate absence, carries little or no weight. Mental-health evidence relied on to establish an exceptional Article 8 case should be expert, specific and measured against the practical ability of the requesting state to manage the asserted risks. A general practitioner’s account based principally on the person’s own fears will ordinarily be insufficient.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2014 for his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a four-year-six-month sentence for large-scale drug trafficking.

He relied on family circumstances, alleged delay, and fears of reprisals because he had acted as an informant. He also relied on a general practitioner’s report diagnosing anxiety and depression and identifying a risk of suicide if he were returned. The central issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his rights under Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant was a fugitive from justice. He had failed to attend scheduled Polish proceedings and had left Poland knowing that he was due to be sentenced.
2. The proceedings involved a large conspiracy, many defendants and substantial documentation. Any delay was not culpable prosecutorial delay. To the extent that the appellant’s absence contributed to delay, it resulted from his own conduct.
3. The appellant’s wife, young child and stepchild would suffer hardship on his extradition, but their circumstances disclosed nothing disproportionate. Hardship alone did not engage Article 8 in this case.
4. The reprisal-risk argument could not sensibly be pursued on the submissions and evidence advanced, particularly in light of the decision in Cronti. The fresh general practitioner’s letter did not provide a sufficient evidential basis for the asserted risk.
5. Although the court accepted that the appellant suffered anxiety and depression, mental-health evidence relied on as a weighty Article 8 consideration had to be expert, specific and measured against the circumstances of the case. That assessment included the ability of the Polish authorities to manage both genuine and morbid but unreal risks.
6. The evidence did not establish an Article 8 threshold capable of making extradition disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed. The usual order for detailed assessment was made if required.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 12 November 2014, Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2014.