Sedzikowski v District Court in Torun Poland

In an extradition case based on a European Arrest Warrant, interference with Article 8 rights must be assessed proportionately in all the circumstances. The assessment is fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations may include the age of the offending, delay before conviction and issue of the warrant, the seriousness and length of the sentence, time already spent in custody, the prospect of early release, and the disruption extradition would cause to family, employment and settled life. Extradition may be disproportionate where the requested person would be sent abroad to serve only a short remaining period of imprisonment after substantial delay and punishment already suffered in the requesting state or elsewhere.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Purdy’s decision at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21 October 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a one-year sentence for fraud arising from conduct in 2000. The appellant had been in custody in the United Kingdom for more than four months and argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights. The central issue was whether, having regard to the delay, sentence, custody already served, possible release and disruption to his life, extradition would be proportionate.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court’s task was to stand back and decide whether extradition would be disproportionate in all the circumstances. The decision was expressly fact-sensitive.
2. The court applied the established approach to Article 8 extradition cases identified in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] 2 WLR 572 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] 3 WLR 90, with particular reference to Baroness Hale’s judgment at paragraph 8 of HH.
3. Relevant factors included the fourteen-year lapse since the offending, the appellant’s age when it occurred, the delay before conviction and issue or certification of the warrant, the relatively short sentence, custody already served, and the possibility of release after half the sentence. The court also considered the appellant’s prospective family and working life in the United Kingdom.
4. The comparison with Chmura v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2013] EWHC 3896 (Admin) was materially informative, although no two cases were identical. The appellant’s further offending, use of an alias and different sentence were adverse factors, but did not outweigh the overall proportionality assessment.
5. Extradition would cause disruption to life and employment beyond that ordinarily caused by a short prison term. Sending the appellant to Poland to be released within a very few weeks would therefore be wholly disproportionate, even assuming that no release occurred. An order was made allowing the appeal, with legal aid costs assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal from District Judge Purdy’s decision at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 21 October 2014, the extradition order was set aside and the appeal allowed.