Jackiewicz v Regional Court of Poznan Poland

In extradition proceedings, Article 8 requires a balance between interference with private and family life and the public interest in extradition. There is no separate test of exceptionality. The public interest is weighty, but its weight varies with the seriousness of the offence and other circumstances, including delay. Extradition will generally remain proportionate unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe.

Family hardship, loss of employment, the interests of children and the availability of support must be assessed cumulatively. Personal and financial hardship which does not reach the required level will not prevent extradition.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Snow on 8 September 2014 directing his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted in Poland of assault and was required to serve the balance of a custodial sentence activated after breach of a suspended sentence and probation requirements.

The appeal relied principally on Article 8, referring to the appellant’s partner, children, difficult pregnancy, financial dependence and the age and relative seriousness of the offence. An application was also made to adduce fresh evidence. The central issues were whether the evidence should be admitted and whether extradition would be disproportionate interference with family life.

1. Fresh evidence. The application was assessed by reference to the threshold identified in Szombathely City Court & Ors v Fenyvesi & Anor [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), at paragraphs 32 and 35. The proposed evidence was largely duplicative and would not have had a serious or decisive effect on the appeal. It therefore did not meet the admissibility threshold.
2. Article 8 framework. The court applied 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. There is no exceptionality test. 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.
3. The public interest includes bringing accused persons to trial, requiring convicted persons to serve sentences, honouring treaty obligations and avoiding safe havens. It carries great weight, although the weight varies with the nature and seriousness of the offence. Delay may reduce the public interest’s weight and increase the impact on family life. The interests of children receive particular consideration.
4. The appellant’s family circumstances, financial hardship, loss of employment, the delay since the offence and the offence’s relative seriousness were taken into account. His knowledge of the suspended sentence and breach of supervision reduced the force of any claim that he had established his family life in a position of security. Available family and state support meant that the consequences, though substantial, were not exceptionally severe.
5. The interference was proportionate. The appeal was dismissed and extradition was upheld.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Snow’s order of 8 September 2014 was dismissed.