Warzynski v Regional Court in Gliwice, Poland

Extradition may be disproportionate under Article 8 only in rare cases where its effect on the requested person is sufficiently severe to outweigh the strong public interest in extradition. The court must conduct a fact-sensitive balancing exercise. Relevant considerations include the nature and extent of the interference with private or family life, the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, delay, the person’s age and subsequent maturation, and any deliberate evasion of justice. A settled private life and the passage of time may carry substantial weight, but they do not necessarily outweigh the public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven for offenders.

The appellant challenged a decision of District Judge Coleman at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted of a non-residential burglary committed when he was 16 and was sought to serve a 14-month sentence. By the time of the appeal, he had lived and worked in the United Kingdom for many years and had a partner.

The central issue was whether extradition would be disproportionate in the light of his Article 8 private-life rights, having regard to the age of the offence, his subsequent conduct and maturation, delay, the seriousness of the offence, and his failure to comply with the suspended sentence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the conclusion that this was not one of the rare cases in which the effect of extradition would be so severe as to outweigh the public interest in extradition.

2. The court applied the proportionality approach summarised in JP v The District Court At Ústí Nad Labem, Czech Republic [2012] EWHC 2603. The assessment required careful examination of the nature and extent of the interference with Article 8 rights and a balance between those rights and the public interests in extradition, honouring international treaties, and ensuring that the United Kingdom did not become a safe haven for offenders.

3. Substantial weight was given to the appellant’s age when he committed the offence, the more than eleven-year period since the offence, his subsequent settled employment and private life, and the delay in sentencing, activating the sentence, issuing the European Arrest Warrant and certifying it.

4. Those factors were outweighed by powerful countervailing considerations. The burglary was serious and would probably have attracted imprisonment in the United Kingdom. The appellant had left Poland shortly after the suspended sentence was imposed, had not maintained contact with the probation officer, and had not initially paid the fine. These matters supported the public interest in extradition and made the case materially different from one in which delay and maturation alone justified refusal.

5. The court also treated the reasoning in Chmura v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2013] EWHC 3896 (Admin) as relevant: a person’s actual change in life and age may substantially affect proportionality. That principle did not determine the outcome here.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Coleman ordered extradition to Poland on 8 October 2014.