Plucinski v Regional Court in Poznan Poland

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8, proportionality requires the court to balance the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and family members against the public interest in extradition. There is no exceptionality test. The public interest is constant and weighty, but its weight varies with the seriousness of the offending and may be reduced by delay. Children’s best interests are a primary consideration, although not necessarily the paramount consideration. The assessment remains fact-sensitive. Extradition may nevertheless be proportionate where the resulting hardship, including separation from young children, does not outweigh the public interest in securing service of the sentence and preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven.

Piotr Plucinski appealed against the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He had been sentenced in Poland to 11 months and 27 days’ imprisonment for attempted burglary and had failed to comply with compensation and probation requirements. He relied on the effect of extradition on his partner and two young children, and on the seven-year delay since the offence. The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the family’s Article 8 rights.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The extradition was compliant with Article 8.
2. The court applied the principles identified in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487 and HH & PH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa; F-K (FC) v Polish Judicial Authority [2012] 3 WLR 90. There is no requirement for exceptional circumstances. The question is whether the interference with private and family life is outweighed by the public interest in extradition.
3. The public interest includes ensuring that convicted persons serve their sentences, honouring treaty obligations and avoiding safe havens. It carries substantial weight, although the weight varies with the seriousness of the offence. Delay may reduce that weight and increase the impact on family life.
4. Children’s best interests are a primary consideration. The court must examine carefully the consequences for the children, particularly where a primary carer may be removed. The assessment is fact-sensitive and the children’s interests are not necessarily paramount.
5. Article 8 was engaged because extradition would affect the appellant’s partner and children. However, the offence, the appellant’s failure to comply with the Polish sentence and supervision requirements, and the public interest in extradition outweighed the family’s interests on the facts. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Riddle ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on a conviction European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order upheld.