Korzonek v District Court In Praga Warsaw Poland

Article 8 proportionality in extradition requires an assessment of the actual interference with private and family life. Where several European Arrest Warrants are involved, the court may assess the proportionality of return under each warrant separately, although the effect on family life is considered overall. Relevant factors include the age and seriousness of the offence, time already served, uncertainty about the sentence remaining after an offence has been discharged, the offender’s conduct, delay attributable to the proceedings, and the weight to be given to family life established while the person was a fugitive. A return may therefore be proportionate under one warrant but disproportionate under another.

The appellant challenged a decision of District Judge Bayne in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 21 July 2014, which ordered his extradition to Poland under three European Arrest Warrants.

The first two warrants concerned convictions for theft and drug-related offending. The third was an accusation warrant concerning theft and assault. The appellant no longer challenged return under the third warrant. He relied principally on Article 8, his family life in the United Kingdom, the age of the offences, time spent on tagged curfew, and uncertainty about the sentence remaining under the second warrant after one of the combined offences had been discharged.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed in respect of the first and third European Arrest Warrants. It was allowed in respect of the second warrant, because return on that warrant would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s private and family life.
2. The proportionality of extradition under sections 14 and 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 required individual assessment of the relevant offences and warrants. In the Article 8 context, however, the court had to consider the interference with family life as a whole, including its likely duration.
3. Return under the first warrant was proportionate. The offences were not trivial, had been committed while the appellant was in breach of a suspended sentence and while he was under investigation for further offending. His family life had been established in the United Kingdom while he was a fugitive, so it was given comparatively little weight.
4. Return under the second warrant was disproportionate. The offence was more than 12 years old; substantial time had already been served; the warrant covered two combined offences, one of which had been discharged; and it was unclear how much of the sentence remained. The offence had not been committed in breach of a suspended sentence, and the period spent on tagged curfew during the prolonged proceedings was also relevant.
5. The family life would not, standing alone, have justified allowing the appeal. It contributed to the overall balance when considered with the age of the offence, sentence uncertainty, prior custody and curfew.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 21 July 2014 District Judge Bayne ordered extradition to Poland under three European Arrest Warrants.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed in respect of European Arrest Warrants 1 and 3, and allowed in respect of European Arrest Warrant 2.