Nastaj v Polish Judicial Ahthority

In extradition cases, delay may be relevant to proportionality under Article 8, but personal and family circumstances do not automatically make extradition disproportionate. The court must assess proportionality independently and must not treat exceptionality as a legal requirement. For conviction cases, Extradition Act 2003, section 14B operates as an alternative to section 14A: the statutory references to accusation and conviction are disjunctive. Where extradition proceeds despite serious medical conditions, appropriate medical information and treatment records may need to accompany the person surrendered.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision ordering extradition to Poland to serve two sentences. He relied on the passage of time, his Article 8 rights and those of his partner, and his tuberculosis and associated treatment difficulties. The District Judge had considered delay under section 14A and had approached Article 8 by reference to exceptionality. The central issues were the correct statutory provision concerning delay and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. Extradition was not disproportionate, subject to the provision that full medical information and treatment records accompany the claimant on surrender.
2. Section 14A of the Extradition Act 2003 concerns accusation cases, whereas section 14B concerns conviction cases. The language of the two provisions makes them alternatives. The word “or” in section 14B cannot be read conjunctively. In a conviction case, the relevant statutory passage of time is therefore that since the person became unlawfully at large, rather than necessarily the date of conviction.
3. Delay nevertheless remains a factor which may properly be considered when assessing proportionality under Article 8. The claimant had been unlawfully at large after leaving Poland and had failed to pay compensation, matters which reduced the significance of the delay in this case.
4. The District Judge had made a serious error by referring only to Norris and treating exceptionality as required. That error did not determine the appeal because the High Court had to decide proportionality on the evidence then available. The claimant’s and his partner’s circumstances, considered alone, were insufficient under HH; the additional delay and medical evidence still did not justify refusal of extradition.
5. The Polish authorities had indicated that anti-tuberculosis medication would be administered on surrender and that treatment could be provided in a prison hospital. Any uncertainty was addressed by requiring the relevant medical statement and records to be sent with the claimant.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed, subject to the medical-information requirement.
• District Judge: On 1 July 2014, District Judge Ikram ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland to serve two sentences of imprisonment.