Jelensky v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland

In an extradition appeal relying on Article 8, the burden of showing that return would be disproportionate is high. The court may consider the available evidence concerning family life, health, delay and the conduct of the requesting authorities. Where the evidence shows no culpable delay by those authorities and does not establish that extradition would be disproportionate, the appeal should be dismissed. Procedural fairness may nevertheless require the dismissal order to be deferred where there is a reasonable possibility that the appellant was not notified of the hearing or had a good reason for non-attendance. A deferred order may be made conditional on the appellant providing, within a specified period, written reasons for non-attendance and full details of the proposed case.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Ikram’s order of 18 July 2014 requiring his extradition to Poland under an accusation warrant concerning an alleged fraud committed in November 2010.

He relied principally on Article 8, stating that he and his wife had lived in the United Kingdom for several years, had no family in Poland, and suffered from health and dependency issues. He also suggested that delay in pursuing the warrant was attributable to the Polish authorities. The appeal was heard in his absence. The central issues were whether extradition would be disproportionate and whether the hearing should proceed despite his non-attendance.

1. The appeal was formally dismissed. The appellant had been notified of the hearing with overwhelming probability, and the material before the court disclosed no basis on which the appeal could succeed.

2. The threshold for establishing that return would be disproportionate in an extradition case relying on Article 8 is high. The court considered the appellant’s long residence in the United Kingdom, his relationship with his wife, their lack of family in Poland, and their health circumstances. Those matters did not, on the information available, establish disproportionality.

3. The evidence from the Polish authorities showed that attempts had been made to contact the appellant at addresses and a workplace associated with him. It was therefore impossible to attribute blame to the Polish authorities for any delay in pursuing the warrant.

4. Although the appeal was dismissed, fairness required the order to be suspended for 14 days. If the appellant supplied written reasons for his absence and a full account of the case he wished to advance, including supporting witness statements, the material would be considered on paper. A further hearing would take place only if the judge considered that it disclosed both a good excuse for non-attendance and a case requiring further consideration. Otherwise, or if nothing was filed within 14 days, the dismissal order would take effect.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed, subject to a 14-day suspension of the order to allow the appellant to explain his non-attendance and set out any further case.
• District Judge: District Judge Ikram ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 18 July 2014.