Mady v Government of Poland

In extradition proceedings, the family impact of surrender must be balanced against the public interest in honouring extradition obligations. Family life interests may weigh heavily, particularly where the requested person provides care for a severely disabled relative, but they do not automatically outweigh the public interest. The assessment must reflect the circumstances existing when the appeal is determined. Where circumstances have materially changed, including the cared-for person’s absence from the United Kingdom and the absence of reliable information about return, the court may proceed without further adjournment. Serious offending and the fugitive status of the requested person are relevant factors in the proportionality assessment.

The appellant challenged a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He was required to serve the remaining part of a sentence for assault and appropriation of property. Before the district judge, the principal issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant relied particularly on his relationship with his severely disabled adult stepson, whom he had helped to care for. After the district judge’s decision, the appeal was repeatedly adjourned to investigate possible local-authority care and obtain psychiatric evidence. By the hearing, the stepson was in Poland and there was no firm information about when he could return. The central issue was whether the appellant’s family interests outweighed the public interest in extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court assessed the proportionality of extradition by balancing the appellant’s article 8 family-life interests against the public interest in upholding extradition obligations to Poland.
2. The effect of extradition on family members is an inherent feature of extradition and must be recognised in the article 8 assessment. It does not, however, determine the outcome. The relevant family circumstances must be assessed as they exist when the appeal is decided.
3. The appellant’s particular caring role for his severely disabled stepson no longer carried the same weight. The stepson was no longer in the United Kingdom, the appellant no longer cared for him, and there was no reliable evidence of when he might return. In those circumstances, a further adjournment was not appropriate, particularly given the lengthy procedural delay.
4. The remaining family interests, including the appellant’s role as the family’s sole source of income and his relationship with his young daughter and stepdaughter, did not outweigh the public interest. The seriousness of the offending, the substantial sentence, and the appellant’s fugitive status were material considerations.
5. Extradition was therefore a proportionate interference with the family’s article 8 rights, and the order for surrender stood.

The appellant appealed to the Administrative Court against the order made by District Judge Snow on 2 September 2013 ordering extradition to Poland. The appeal was dismissed by Mr Justice Cranston.