Jedrzeijewski v Regional Court in Warsaw Poland

In an extradition case engaging article 8, the court must assess whether extradition is a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition arrangements. The structured approach requires consideration of interference with private and family life, legality and legitimate aims, followed by proportionality balancing. The public interest in extradition is weighty, but its strength varies with the nature and seriousness of the offending. Delay may reduce that public interest and increase the impact on private life. In unusual circumstances, the cumulative effect of a trivial offence, substantial delay and other personal factors may make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant challenged an order of the Westminster Magistrates Court dated 6 October 2014 directing his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of a sentence of five years and 28 days’ imprisonment for possessing 0.39 grams of cannabis. The suspended sentence had later been activated.

The parties accepted that extradition would interfere with the appellant’s article 8 rights. The issue was whether extradition was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition arrangements.

1. The appeal was allowed. Extradition would be disproportionate in the particular and very unusual circumstances of the case.
2. The court applied the structured article 8 approach identified in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic of Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, drawing on Norris v United States (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487. The court must identify the interference, consider whether it is lawful and pursues a legitimate aim, and then balance the interference against the importance of that aim.
3. The public interest in extradition remains substantial because the United Kingdom must honour its extradition arrangements and avoid becoming a safe haven. Its weight nevertheless varies according to the nature and seriousness of the offence. Delay may diminish that weight and increase the impact on private and family life.
4. The offence was properly characterised as trivial. It involved a very small quantity of cannabis, was committed nine years earlier when the appellant was about 20, and the appellant had already spent more than two months in custody. Although the sentence had become more serious because a conditional sentence was activated, the cumulative factors reduced the public interest to a minimal level and made extradition disproportionate.

• Westminster Magistrates Court: on 6 October 2014, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland pursuant to the conviction European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal and held that extradition was disproportionate under article 8 in the particular circumstances.