Smolarz v Regional Court in Szczecin

In an extradition appeal, interference with private and family life must be assessed under Article 8 by reference to the evidence and circumstances relied upon. Ordinary disruption caused by extradition will generally carry limited weight. A recent relationship, unsupported by evidence, will not establish that extradition is disproportionate. The appellant must advance a properly evidenced case capable of engaging Article 8 in a meaningful way.

The appellant appealed against a Westminster Magistrates’ Court order dated 15 October 2014 directing his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant issued by the Regional Court in Szczecin. The warrant concerned convictions for drug-trafficking offences and possession of marijuana. The District Judge found that the appellant was a fugitive, that the Polish authorities were not responsible for the delay, and that extradition would not be disproportionate to his private and family life rights.

Before the Administrative Court, the appellant relied principally on a new relationship and on family circumstances involving his mother and younger brother. The central issue was whether those matters made extradition a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s order for extradition was correct.
2. The appellant had not advanced an arguable or properly evidenced Article 8 case. The evidence concerning his girlfriend was vague. She had not given evidence or provided a witness statement, and the relationship had not been relied upon before the District Judge.
3. The ordinary disruption to the appellant’s life resulting from extradition was no greater than would ordinarily be expected. That disruption did not, without more, make extradition disproportionate.
4. The appellant’s earlier reliance on his relationship with his mother, including her medical difficulties, and his younger brother’s wish to come to England did not establish a bar to extradition or a breach of his rights.
5. On the evidence, extradition was a proportionate interference with the appellant’s private and family life. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 15 October 2014, the District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the extradition decision upheld.