Zawislak v Regional Court in Rzeszow Poland

Uncertainty about the date on which a lawfully imposed custodial sentence must resume does not necessarily make detention arbitrary under article 5. A very high level of uncertainty would be required, and a delay of about six months did not meet that threshold on the facts. Where the appellant bears the burden of establishing a Convention breach, the necessary information should be sought directly; raising the point only in a skeleton argument is insufficient. In an article 8 assessment, the interests of affected children are a primary consideration, but they may be outweighed by the importance of extradition arrangements and the seriousness of the offending.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Blake’s order of 17 September 2014 requiring his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He had been released from a Polish prison because of overcrowding, with part of his sentence remaining to be served, and later travelled to the United Kingdom. He challenged extradition under articles 5 and 8, arguing that the unknown date for resuming his sentence made the detention arbitrary and that extradition would disproportionately affect his partner and her children.

1. Article 5. The court did not need to decide whether an arrangement involving an unknown commencement date could ever be unlawful through arbitrariness. Such a contention would require a very high level of uncertainty. The possible delay here could not exceed approximately six months, which did not establish even a breach of article 5, still less a flagrant breach.
2. The appellant knew that he had to serve the balance of his sentence and had not established when notification of the return date was given. Under section 21, the burden lay on him. That burden could have been addressed by a direct request for information, supported where appropriate by adverse inferences from a failure to answer. A skeleton argument merely gives notice of an argument and does not serve as the proper means of obtaining information required to discharge the burden.
3. Article 8. The interests of the children affected by extradition were a primary consideration. The appellant’s close relationship with his partner’s children and the support he provided did not make extradition disproportionate. The importance of the extradition treaty and the significance of the offending, apparently a domestic burglary involving violence, justified extradition to serve the sentence.
4. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal from District Judge Blake’s decision of 17 September 2014, the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.