Kosowski v Regional Court In Kielce, Poland

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8, the court must balance the interference with the requested person’s private and family life against the public interest in extradition. The interests of children form part of that assessment, but do not automatically outweigh the seriousness of the offence or other factors supporting extradition. Relevant considerations may include the seriousness of the offending, the activation of a suspended sentence following further offending, fugitive conduct, the duration and quality of family life in the United Kingdom, and the family’s ability to cope during the person’s detention. Where those factors make extradition proportionate, the appeal should be dismissed.

The appellant challenged an order of the Senior District Judge made at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 22 September 2014, directing his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of a sentence of one year, ten months and ten days’ imprisonment.

The challenge relied on Article 8. The appellant relied on his partner, his two-year-old daughter, his employment and his good character in the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Senior District Judge’s assessment of the evidence and application of the law were unimpeachable.
2. The governing principles had been considered by the Supreme Court in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 and revisited in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, reported at [2013] 1 AC 338, particularly where children’s interests were involved.
3. The court carried out the required balancing exercise. The appellant had participated in a serious robbery involving violence, had received the benefit of a suspended sentence, and had committed a further offence resulting in activation of that sentence.
4. The appellant’s fugitive status was also relevant: he had been hiding in a loft when an attempt was made to arrest him.
5. The court considered the family circumstances, including the appellant’s partner and young child, his previous role as sole provider, and his family and employment ties in the United Kingdom. It was material that his partner and child had coped during his four-and-a-half months in custody and had family support in both the United Kingdom and Poland.
6. In those circumstances, extradition was wholly proportionate under Article 8.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 22 September 2014, the Senior District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.