Pogoda v Regional Court in Bielsko-biala (Poland)

Extradition will be incompatible with Article 8 only where the interference with private and family life is sufficiently severe to outweigh the strong public interest in extradition. There is no separate test of exceptionality. The court must assess the particular consequences of extradition, the seriousness of the offending, delay, and the public interest in honouring international obligations. Mental ill-health may contribute to an exceptionally severe impact, but it does not automatically prevent extradition where proper care will be available in the requesting state.

The appellant appealed against a Westminster Magistrates’ Court decision ordering her extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant. She had been convicted of theft from her employer and was required to serve a one-year sentence. Her sole ground of appeal was that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her Article 8 rights, particularly because of the likely deterioration in her mental health.

The central issue was whether the consequences of extradition were exceptionally severe when weighed against the public interest in extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order was upheld under section 21(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The court applied the approach in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic of Genoa [2012] UKSC 25. There is no test of exceptionality. The question is whether interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and family members is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. That public interest is weighty and varies with the seriousness of the offending. Delay may reduce its weight and increase the impact on private and family life.
3. The appellant’s fragile mental state, suicidal thoughts, risk of self-harm, and possible damage to her recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder were material considerations. The availability of proper care in Poland meant that section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 did not provide a basis for refusing extradition, but the mental-health evidence remained relevant to the Article 8 proportionality assessment.
4. The offence involved a flagrant breach of trust by a long-term employee, over a substantial period and involving a significant sum. The suspended sentence, partial compliance, four-and-a-half-year delay in issuing the warrant, lawful life in the United Kingdom, employment, and family support were all considered. Delay was taken into account in the appellant’s favour.
5. The evidence established hardship, but not a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The strong public interest in honouring extradition requests prevailed. A copy of the psychologist’s report was to be provided to the Polish authorities before extradition.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Margot Coleman ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 16 October 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order upheld.