Fraczyk v District Court In Koszalin, Poland

In an extradition appeal based on delay and Article 8 rights, the court must balance the requested person’s private and family life against the strong public interest in honouring international extradition obligations. Extradition will be disproportionate only in exceptional circumstances. A stable relationship, employment, good character and delay will not ordinarily outweigh that public interest where the offences are substantial and a significant custodial sentence remains. The absence of dependent children may make the Article 8 case materially weaker. Fresh evidence should be admitted only where it was unavailable at the earlier hearing, could not reasonably have been obtained with diligence, and would be decisive.

Katarzyna Fraczyk appealed against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 12 September 2014 ordering her extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned four custodial sentences, totalling four years, imposed for theft, perverting the course of justice and obtaining property by deception.

The appeal relied on substantial delay, the appellant’s good character and established life in the United Kingdom, her relationship with her partner, and credit said to be due for a domestic curfew. She also sought to adduce further evidence concerning National Insurance records and payments to a victim. The central issues were whether the further evidence should be admitted and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s Article 8 rights.

1. Further evidence. The proposed additional evidence was inadmissible under the test in Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), [2009] 4 All ER 324. The appellant had not shown that the evidence was unavailable at the Magistrates’ Court hearing, that it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, or that it would be decisive. No witness statement adequately explained the late production. In any event, the evidence would not have altered the result.
2. Article 8 and delay. Even assuming that delay in the United Kingdom had been culpable, it did not justify allowing the appeal. Delay and good character were insufficient in the circumstances.
3. Proportionality. The court applied the approach in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338. The public interest in giving effect to international obligations remained weighty. Extradition could be avoided on Article 8 grounds only in a very rare case where the interference with private or family life was disproportionate. The absence of dependent children made the appellant’s case materially weaker. Her relationship, work, tax payments, subsequent good conduct and the age of the offences did not approach the required threshold.
4. The District Judge was entitled to find that extradition was proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed. The court upheld District Judge Coleman’s order of 12 September 2014 requiring extradition to Poland.