Durakiewicz v Regional Court Poznan Poland

Extradition may be refused where returning a person to serve a sentence would be wholly disproportionate under article 8. Relevant considerations include the gravity and age of the offence, the length of time since it was committed, the extent and uncertainty of any alleged non-compliance, and the person’s established private and family life in the United Kingdom. The court may assess proportionality against the evidence actually available, particularly where the requesting authority has failed to explain the basis on which extradition is pursued.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to serve one year’s imprisonment for driving with excess alcohol. The sentence had originally been suspended, but was later activated. During earlier proceedings, the appellant produced a Polish regional court decision which appeared to set aside the order requiring him to serve the sentence. The requesting authorities did not provide a satisfactory explanation of the decision or identify the alleged breach relied upon after the appellant’s release from custody.

The appeal had previously been considered by the district judge and by Bean J, who admitted the further document and allowed time for enquiries. The central issue was whether extradition remained proportionate in the circumstances.

1. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was discharged.
2. The Polish regional court decision appeared to have quashed the activation of the suspended sentence. In any event, the prosecution could not rely on any breach of the suspended-sentence conditions before 5 November 2008.
3. The warrant did not explain what breach was alleged to have occurred between the appellant’s release in March 2009 and the end of the suspension period in August 2009. The appellant had not been given clear information about any continuing obligations, and the Polish authorities had not answered the court’s enquiries.
4. Returning the appellant to Poland to serve one year’s imprisonment, after the lapse of time and on the basis of a possible breach during the final period of the suspension, would be disproportionate for the purposes of article 8. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the time since its commission, the limited and uncertain period of alleged non-compliance, and the appellant’s established private life in the United Kingdom. His wife’s ability to care for the children did not remove the significance of the family circumstances.
5. The extradition request was therefore inappropriate in the particular circumstances, and the appellant was discharged.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was allowed and the appellant was discharged.
• District Judge: on 7 May 2014, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland to serve one year’s imprisonment.
• High Court: on 24 September 2014, Bean J admitted further documentary evidence and allowed the requesting authority time to respond.