Miraszewski & Ors v District Court In Torun & Anor

Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, compatibility with Convention rights and statutory proportionality are separate bars to extradition in accusation cases. The statutory proportionality assessment is confined to the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the availability of less coercive measures. There is no predetermined hierarchy between those factors.

The Lord Chief Justice’s guidance identifies a floor, not a ceiling, for seriousness. The judge remains free to find an offence non-serious outside its listed categories. Delay is not a free-standing proportionality factor, although it may inform the likely penalty or alternative measures. Seriousness is assessed principally by domestic standards, with regard to the conduct, culpability and harm. A requested person must identify an appropriate less coercive alternative.

Three Polish nationals appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against orders made by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court for their extradition to Poland under European Arrest Warrants.

The first and second appellants were wanted for burglary-related accusation matters; the second was also wanted to serve sentences for conviction matters. The third appellant was wanted to face allegations connected with an organised criminal group and counterfeit currency. Each relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, insofar as applicable, the new statutory proportionality bar in section 21A(1)(b).

The appeals raised, for the first time in this court, the proper construction and application of section 21A: the role of the Lord Chief Justice’s guidance, the statutory proportionality factors, delay, likely sentence and less coercive alternatives to extradition.

1. All three appeals were dismissed. Lord Justice Pitchford’s reasons, with which Collins J agreed, upheld the extradition orders.

2. Section 21A(1)(a) and (b) creates two distinct bars in accusation cases. Article 8 compatibility must be considered separately from the free-standing proportionality assessment. Under section 21A(2) and (3), that assessment is confined to the seriousness of the alleged conduct, likely penalty, and the availability of less coercive measures. The factors have no fixed hierarchy, although seriousness will commonly affect the likely penalty.

3. The Lord Chief Justice’s guidance under section 2(7A) identifies offences at the lowest end of seriousness for certification purposes. It is a floor, not a ceiling, for the judicial assessment. A judge may find an offence outside the listed categories non-serious, and must weigh the statutory factors independently.

4. Delay is not a free-standing factor under section 21A(1)(b). It may be relevant only insofar as it informs one of the specified factors, particularly likely penalty or the possibility of less coercive measures. It remains separately relevant to Article 8 and to the passage-of-time bar.

5. Seriousness is assessed principally by domestic standards, considering the nature and quality of the acts, the requested person’s culpability and the harm caused. The judge may infer likely penalty from the warrant and domestic sentencing practice; evidence from the requesting state is not routinely required. The requested person bears an evidential burden to identify an appropriate less coercive means of securing attendance.

6. Applying those principles, the burglary allegations against Miraszewski and Kanigowski were not trivial. Kanigowski was also a fugitive required to serve existing custodial sentences. The allegations against Fluśniak were serious, a custodial sentence was likely, and no suitable less coercive measure was shown. In each case, the Article 8 interference and extradition were proportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — dismissed the three statutory appeals and upheld the extradition orders: [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin).
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — ordered each appellant’s extradition to Poland. The orders were made by District Judge Snow, the Chief Magistrate District Judge Riddle, and District Judge McPhee respectively.