Betlejewski, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court of Torun

In deciding whether extradition is proportionate, the court may consider the requested person’s age, the seriousness of the offences, delay, conduct since the offences and the effect of extradition on close family members. The court must disregard uncharged offences and will not generally reassess sentences imposed by the requesting state. Personal circumstances may justify refusing extradition only where, taken with the other factors, they make removal disproportionate. Conduct and family circumstances may instead be placed before the requesting court where it has power to reduce or consolidate the sentence.

The appellant challenged a District Judge’s decision ordering his extradition to Poland to serve suspended sentences imposed for commercial burglary, shoplifting and receiving stolen goods. He relied on his age when the offences were committed, the passage of time, his conduct in the United Kingdom and the serious depressive illness of his mother, who depended substantially on his support.

A procedural issue also arose under the newly introduced extradition provisions in Part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The central questions were whether a respondent’s notice was required and whether extradition would be disproportionate in the circumstances.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the requirement to serve a respondent’s notice under Criminal Procedure Rules 2014, Part 17.21 applied only where the provisions requiring permission to appeal were in force. As permission had not been required in this case, there was no procedural defect.

2. In assessing proportionality, the court considered the offences, the appellant’s age at the time, the delay, his conduct in the United Kingdom and the effect of extradition on his mother. The offences were not trivial, although the appellant was only 17 when they were committed. The mother’s serious depression and dependence on the appellant were relevant factors, but she had professional care and another son who could provide some support.

3. The court was required to disregard the suggestion that the appellant might have committed other offences, since those matters were not the subject of the extradition warrant. It was also inappropriate to go behind the sentences imposed in Poland. The court could not determine whether equivalent sentences would have been imposed in the United Kingdom without knowing the full circumstances or the appellant’s character.

4. The delay did not affect proportionality. The explanations for the delay in activating the sentences, issuing the arrest warrant and certifying it were adequate in the circumstances. The appellant’s good behaviour, employment and family circumstances could be drawn to the attention of the Polish court, which could consolidate offences or reduce the period to be served. The possibility of release before the full sentence was served was also a matter for that court.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed; the District Judge’s extradition decision was upheld.