Gowin v Circuit Court in Katowice Poland

On an extradition appeal, delay is a relevant factor in assessing proportionality under Article 8, but it does not automatically make extradition disproportionate. The court must assess the circumstances as a whole, including the requesting state’s responsibility for the delay, the requested person’s conduct, the seriousness and age of the offending, the sentence remaining, the effect on family life, and available family or welfare support. Hardship to a spouse and child is important but ordinarily insufficient where the interference is limited and practical support is available. The question is whether extradition would be disproportionate in all the circumstances.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order directing his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for supplying drugs. The offences were committed between 2003 and 2006. The claimant relied principally on delay and the impact of extradition on his wife and young daughter under Article 8.

The District Judge had found that the claimant was effectively a fugitive and that the delay was largely attributable to his attempts to postpone serving the sentence and his departure from Poland. The central issue was whether extradition would nevertheless be disproportionate in the circumstances.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had been entitled to direct extradition to Poland.
2. Delay may properly be taken into account in the Article 8 proportionality assessment. However, knowledge that a person may have entered the United Kingdom does not necessarily make it reasonable for the requesting state immediately to issue a warrant, particularly where the person’s address cannot readily be discovered. There was no sufficient culpability on the part of the Polish authorities.
3. The claimant’s conduct was material. The District Judge was entitled to regard him as effectively a fugitive because he left Poland without notifying the probation service and had failed to comply with conditions connected with the suspended sentence.
4. The interference with family life had to be assessed in all the circumstances. The daughter’s age, schooling in the United Kingdom and relationship with her father were relevant, as were the uncertainty surrounding the marriage, the wife’s ability to care for the child, assistance from relatives and available welfare support.
5. Although extradition would cause hardship, only a relatively short period of imprisonment remained, with the possibility of reduction or release under Polish law. Following the approach in the Supreme Court’s decision in HH, the interference was not disproportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• District Judge: on 3 September 2014, District Judge Coleman directed extradition to Poland.