Michalik v Circuit Court In Katowice, Poland

Credit against a foreign sentence for time spent under an electronically monitored curfew depends on the applicable foreign law and practice. A six-hour curfew was insufficient for credit under the information supplied by the Polish authorities. Nevertheless, curfew may remain relevant to the proportionality assessment under Article 8. Extradition may be disproportionate where the remaining sentence is short and the case has unusual features, including the offender’s age when the offences were committed, subsequent maturity and rehabilitation, family circumstances, delay, and the likely reduction of imprisonment to a curfew. The decision is fact-sensitive and does not establish a general rule against extradition in such circumstances.

Daniel Michalik appealed against District Judge Snow’s decision of 5 August 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of the remaining four months and 13 days of a six-month sentence imposed for offences committed when the appellant was 17.

The appellant argued that time spent subject to a six-hour electronic curfew meant that he had already served the sentence, and that extradition would breach his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether curfew time attracted credit under Polish law and whether extradition was proportionate in the circumstances.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court held that the appellant had not established that his sentence had been served. The information from the Polish authorities showed that credit required a curfew of at least 12 hours a day. The appellant’s six-hour curfew therefore did not count towards the Polish sentence.
2. Time spent subject to the curfew could nevertheless be considered in the Article 8 proportionality assessment. It demonstrated that the appellant had experienced a form of punishment, and there was a substantial chance that the Polish sentence would be reduced to a curfew on his return.
3. The Article 8 assessment was fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations included the appellant’s strong relationship with his young daughter, the financial effect of extradition on the child and her mother, the relatively non-serious nature of the offences, the appellant’s age when they were committed, the delay, the limited period remaining to serve, his employment record and his apparent rehabilitation.
4. Although the Framework and the United Kingdom’s international obligations were important, the combination of unusual features meant that extradition would be disproportionate. The court stressed that the conclusion was confined to the particular facts and did not establish a general rule.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal allowed against District Judge Snow’s decision of 5 August 2014 ordering extradition.