Turek v Regional Court In Radom, Poland

In extradition proceedings, an Article 8 objection requires a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment. The disruption caused by extradition and the length of the sentence are relevant, but they must be assessed against the person’s wider custodial position, the seriousness and circumstances of the offending, and the interests of international comity. Extradition will be avoided on dependent-child grounds only in very rare cases where a domestic sentencing court would probably impose immediate custody. A challenge based on deliberate absence fails where the evidence establishes, to the criminal standard, awareness of the trial date and a deliberate decision not to attend. The passage of time bars extradition only where it makes extradition unjust or oppressive; the burden remains fact-sensitive.

The appellant challenged an order made by a District Judge on 7 August 2014 directing his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of a six-month sentence for theft of clothing committed in 2008, when the appellant was aged 19.

He argued that extradition would breach Article 8, that he had not deliberately absented himself from his trial for the purposes of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition was oppressive because of the passage of time under section 14. The central issues were whether the District Judge had been entitled to reject those objections.

1. Article 8. The court dismissed the Article 8 challenge. Proportionality required consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the disruption caused by extradition, the remaining sentence, the appellant’s custodial position under an earlier extradition order, his family circumstances, the seriousness and circumstances of the offending, and international comity. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, time spent in custody was to be treated as credit against the total sentences faced by the appellant, rather than solely against the later six-month sentence.
2. The principles in H (H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic [2013] 1 AC 388 were applied. Extradition based on dependent-child considerations would be avoided only in very rare circumstances where an English sentencing court, on broadly similar facts, would nevertheless have imposed immediate custody. The appellant’s partner and child were in Poland, and the court was satisfied that an English court would have imposed an immediate custodial sentence. The different facts meant that Nowak v Poland [2014] EW8C 3466 (Admin) did not assist the appellant.
3. Deliberate absence. The District Judge had been entitled to find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant knew of the scheduled trial and deliberately chose not to attend. The European arrest warrant stated that he knew of the trial date and had appointed a lawyer. The District Judge was also entitled to reject the appellant’s evidence as vague and unconvincing. The reliance on Bicioc v Romania [2014] EWHC 628 (Admin) did not alter that conclusion.
4. Passage of time. The District Judge had been entitled to conclude that extradition was not unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time. The court found no evidence establishing oppression.
5. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order dated 7 August 2014.
• The judgment also records an earlier extradition order dated 7 February 2014 and an unsuccessful appeal against that order, but gives no citation for that decision.