Plowens v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland

Extradition will not be disproportionate merely because return causes hardship to the requested person, a fiancée or dependent family members. Personal circumstances, including employment, family obligations and the motive for leaving the requesting state, must be weighed, but they do not necessarily overcome the public interest in extradition. A pending application in the requesting state concerning execution or reduction of sentence is not, by itself, a reason to refuse extradition. Prison overcrowding in Poland did not justify refusal where the evidence no longer supported that argument.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Purdy’s decision of 21 August 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland. The warrant concerned two Polish convictions, for robbery and criminal damage, resulting in suspended sentences which were later ordered to be served.

He relied on the age of the offences, his family circumstances, employment, relationship with his fiancée, financial support for his father, and prison conditions in Poland. The central issues were whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private life and whether prison overcrowding provided a further reason to refuse extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The seriousness of the robbery, involving violence against the victim and theft from her flat, was a significant factor supporting extradition. The total sentence to be served was approximately two years and four months.

2. The appellant’s good conduct, employment, relationship with his fiancée, family responsibilities and the hardship that extradition would cause were taken into account. His motive for leaving Poland, including the need to support his seriously ill mother, also operated in his favour. Those matters nevertheless did not overcome the legal hurdle for establishing that extradition would be disproportionate because of interference with private life.

3. The appellant’s pending application in Poland to maintain the suspension of the sentences or reduce the period to be served did not justify refusing extradition. The Polish court could be informed of his conduct, family circumstances and motives when deciding what, if any, sentence should now be served.

4. The argument based on overcrowding in Polish prisons failed. The position had recently been considered in the Administrative Court and, whatever the position in 2008, the current circumstances no longer supported prison overcrowding as a reason not to extradite.

5. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The court permitted the appellant to obtain and pass on the transcript, including the observations concerning matters that might assist the Polish court.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 21 August 2014. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.