Ziaja v Regional Cour in Lodz Poland

In an extradition appeal based on delay, family hardship and the age of the offences, proportionality under Article 8 must be assessed on the individual facts. Delay may be relevant, but so is the requested person’s conduct in avoiding the sentence. The possibility of sentence reduction or suspension by the requesting state’s court does not itself make extradition disproportionate. Earlier decisions allowing appeals on materially different facts do not establish a general rule.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Zani’s decision of 2 September 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence for supplying drugs.

The offences were committed in 2004 and 2005. The claimant had left Poland after his request to defer the sentence was refused and had lived and worked in the United Kingdom, where he helped care for two children. He relied on delay, family hardship, his conduct in the United Kingdom and the possibility of relief from the Polish court under Article 77(1) of the Polish Criminal Code. The central issue was whether extradition was disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s decision was correct.

2. Delay was relevant to the Article 8 proportionality assessment, but did not operate independently of the claimant’s conduct. The delay followed his decision to leave Poland without informing the authorities and to remain in the United Kingdom as a fugitive.

3. Family hardship was relevant, but the District Judge was entitled on the evidence to conclude that family members could provide childcare and financial assistance.

4. The possibility that the claimant might persuade the Polish court to reduce or suspend the balance of the sentence was a matter for that court. It did not make extradition disproportionate.

5. Chmura v District Court Of Lublin Poland CO/11141/2013 was decided on its own facts and did not govern the present appeal.

6. The argument that the offence on the arrest warrant required a cross-border element was hopeless. The offences were in any event serious.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, Collins J dismissed the appeal and upheld the extradition order.
• District Judge: On 2 September 2014, District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Poland to serve the balance of the sentence.