Jankowski v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland

In an appeal against an extradition order, the requested-state court principally reviews whether the lower court’s decision was wrong. In an accusation European Arrest Warrant case, the court does not assess the strength of the requesting state’s evidence or require the warrant to establish a prima facie case. Delay will make extradition oppressive only where the statutory test is satisfied; seriousness of the alleged offending, the circumstances of the delay and any resulting injustice are relevant. Article 8 requires a balancing exercise between family life and the public interest in extradition and compliance with treaty obligations. General concerns about healthcare in the requesting state require evidential support.

A District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland to stand trial for alleged VAT fraud and money laundering. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds that extradition was oppressive because of a delay of approximately seven and a half to eight years, and that it would unjustifiably interfere with his and his family’s rights under Article 8.

On appeal, he additionally argued that the European Arrest Warrant contained insufficient evidence, including no witness evidence, and raised concerns about medical treatment following hand surgery. The central issues were whether the District Judge had erred in rejecting oppression and the Article 8 challenge, and whether the warrant disclosed a sufficient case for trial.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had given an impeccable direction on the requirements of sections 14 and 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, and his conclusions on oppression and Article 8 were conclusions open to him on the undisputed facts.

2. In an accusation European Arrest Warrant case, the courts of the requested state do not assess the strength of the case against the requested person. The appellant’s complaint that the warrant contained no witness evidence therefore misunderstood the function of the European Arrest Warrant system.

3. The delay, although substantial and attributable to the requesting authority, did not make extradition oppressive. The alleged offending was serious, the delay was not at the highest end of delays encountered in such cases, and there was no suggestion that the passage of time had caused injustice.

4. The Article 8 challenge required a balancing exercise. The children would suffer emotionally, but arrangements could be made for their care. The seriousness of the alleged offences and the public interest in the United Kingdom complying with its treaty obligations outweighed the appellant’s and his family’s Article 8 rights.

5. The appellant’s post-hearing concern about treatment following surgery did not justify refusal of extradition. There was no evidence supporting the fear that necessary treatment would be unavailable, and extradition courts had repeatedly accepted that healthcare arrangements in Poland were generally sufficient for such problems.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge: Extradition to Poland was ordered on 16 February 2015.