Dolinski v Circuit Court of Zielona Gora Poland

In extradition proceedings, Article 8 requires a fact-sensitive balance between the interference with family life and the public interest in extradition, including the importance of honouring treaty obligations. The public interest will usually outweigh family-life rights unless the consequences are exceptionally severe. Avoiding extradition will be very rare where comparable offending would attract an immediate custodial sentence in the United Kingdom. Where a person must in any event return to the requesting state to serve a sentence, extradition to face a separate accusation will not ordinarily create excessive additional interference with Article 8 rights.

Dariusz Dolinski appealed against an order made by Senior District Judge Riddle at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. One warrant concerned an accusation of obtaining a loan using a falsified employment certificate. The other concerned a conviction for serious threats, assault and coercion, for which a custodial sentence remained outstanding.

The appellant relied before the High Court on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning his partner and children. The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life, having regard to the seriousness of the conviction, the likely domestic sentence, the treaty obligations and the separate accusation warrant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order for extradition under both European Arrest Warrants was upheld.
2. Article 8 in extradition cases requires a fact-sensitive assessment. The court must weigh the nature and gravity of the interference with family life against the importance of the aims pursued, including the public interest in extradition and the duty to honour international treaty obligations. The principles identified in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 were applied.
3. The public interest in extradition will ordinarily outweigh the Article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference are exceptionally severe. It should be only in very rare cases that extradition is avoided where, on broadly similar facts and allowing proportionately for dependent children, a United Kingdom sentencing court would impose an immediate custodial sentence.
4. As to the conviction warrant, the appellant would have received a custodial sentence in the United Kingdom for comparable offending. Nothing established that this was a very rare case justifying refusal of extradition.
5. As to the accusation warrant, the appellant had in any event to return to Poland to serve the sentence under the conviction warrant. His return to face the separate accusation therefore did not involve excessive additional interference with his Article 8 rights, particularly in light of the treaty obligations.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the extradition order made by Senior District Judge Riddle at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dismissed.