Mika v Judicial Authority of Poland

In extradition proceedings, the public interest ordinarily carries great weight, but it must still be balanced proportionately against private and family life under Article 8. Relevant factors include the seriousness of the offending, delay in seeking extradition, whether the person was a fugitive, the effect of any domestic curfew or bail restrictions, the sentence to be served, and the consequences for family life. There is no requirement of exceptionality, although extradition will ordinarily be proportionate unless the interference is exceptionally severe. The cumulative effect of fact-sensitive considerations may nevertheless make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence activated after a conviction for a low-value burglary. He had lived openly in the United Kingdom for several years, had not known that the suspended sentence had been activated, and had been subject to an electronically monitored curfew. The extradition request was issued about ten years after the offence, with no adequate explanation for the delay. The central issue was whether extradition was proportionate having regard to the appellant’s Article 8 private and family life and the public interest in extradition.

1. Appeal allowed. The decision to order extradition was not proportionate in the particular circumstances.
2. The court applied the structured Article 8 approach identified in Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 and H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25. The court must identify any interference with private and family life, consider whether it is lawful and pursues a legitimate aim, and then balance the interference against the importance of extradition.
3. There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition. Its weight varies with the nature and seriousness of the offence. Delay may reduce the weight of that public interest while increasing the impact on private and family life. No test of exceptionality applies, although the public interest will ordinarily prevail unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe.
4. The uncertainty whether Poland would give credit for the appellant’s lengthy electronically monitored curfew was a material factor in the proportionality assessment. It was not necessary for credit to arise automatically before the matter could be taken into account.
5. The decisive assessment was cumulative and fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations included the appellant having been allowed to leave Poland, the low value of the stolen property, the length of the sentence, his lack of knowledge that it had been activated, the curfew, and the unexplained delay in pursuing extradition.
6. There were no ancillary orders and no order for costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court order dated 30 October 2014 was allowed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Blake ordered extradition to Poland on the European Arrest Warrant.