Szkwarkowski v Regional Court In Gdansk, Poland

In an extradition appeal, a claim that an electronically monitored curfew has substantially discharged a foreign sentence must be supported by evidence of the foreign law and the qualifying period required for credit. Where the available information indicates that a materially longer curfew is required, and no evidence suggests that the period imposed would qualify, the court may reject the claim without further adjournment. The possibility of serving the sentence under an electronic surveillance scheme in the requesting state does not itself establish a bar to extradition. Interference with Article 8 rights will be proportionate where the appellant knowingly left the requesting state and the family impact is not sufficiently severe.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Coleman at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 25 July 2014 directing his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. Extradition was sought so that he could serve a 10-month sentence for causing grievous bodily harm.

The principal issue was whether credit for seven hours per day spent on electronically monitored curfew in England meant that the appellant had served, or almost served, his Polish sentence. A further issue concerned the proportionality of extradition under Article 8.

1. Curfew credit. The Polish authorities’ response indicated that a curfew of at least 12 hours was required to obtain credit against a Polish sentence. In England, nine hours was required for half a day’s credit. Nothing suggested that the appellant’s seven-hour curfew would qualify under Polish law. The court therefore found no basis for concluding that the sentence had been served or almost served.
2. Further information. The court declined to adjourn for additional information. The available response, together with the information in the accompanying case, provided a sufficient basis for deciding the issue, and no contrary evidence had been identified.
3. Marzurkiewicz. The passage relied on from Marzurkiewicz v District Court In Rzeszow Poland [2013] EWHC 1332 (Admin) did not assist because the duration of the curfew and whether the relevant proposition had been agreed were unclear.
4. Article 8 and disposition. The appellant had left Poland knowing that he should not have done so. Any interference with his Article 8 rights and those of his family was not sufficiently severe to make extradition disproportionate. There was no bar to extradition and no human-rights issue requiring the appeal to succeed. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 25 July 2014, District Judge Coleman ordered extradition to Poland.