Hazi v Circuit Court in Gdansk Poland

Delay caused by a person deliberately fleeing a country to avoid serving a sentence cannot ordinarily make extradition unjust or oppressive. There is no absolute rule excluding delay from the assessment under article 8, but family life established with knowledge of the outstanding sentence carries significantly reduced weight. The court may also take account of the absence of any communication with the requesting state and the importance of international co-operation in preventing fugitives from evading lawful sentences.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Bayne’s order of 16 May 2014 requiring his extradition to Poland on a conviction warrant in respect of a racketeering offence. An 18-month sentence had been activated after a later theft conviction, and the appellant had remained in the United Kingdom since 2005.

He argued that the passage of time made extradition oppressive and that his established family life made extradition disproportionate under article 8. The central issues were the effect of delay attributable to his flight and the weight to be given to his family circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had properly considered the relevant issues and reached a decision open to her.
2. Applying Lord Diplock’s dictum in Kakis v Government of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779, delay resulting from deliberately fleeing the country to avoid serving a sentence could not be relied upon as making extradition unjust or oppressive.
3. There was no absolute rule excluding delay from consideration under article 8. However, the appellant’s family life had been established with knowledge of the sentence awaiting him in Poland. It therefore carried substantially less weight than family life established in different circumstances.
4. The absence of evidence that the appellant had communicated with the Polish authorities since 2005 was relevant. The requesting authorities could reasonably await information indicating that the fugitive was in the United Kingdom before issuing a European Arrest Warrant.
5. The seriousness of the offence and the principle of international co-operation in preventing fugitives from evading legitimate sentences weighed against refusing extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 8 October 2014, the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge: District Judge Bayne ordered extradition on 16 May 2014.