Wasilewski, R (on the application of) v District Court Torun, Poland

In extradition proceedings, interference with family and private life under Article 8 must be balanced against the substantial public interest in extradition. That interest varies with the seriousness of the offence and may be reduced by delay, but will ordinarily prevail unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe. The appellate court’s task is not necessarily to decide afresh: whether applying a review approach or the broader approach urged by the appellant, intervention requires a material error or an unjustifiable conclusion. Family hardship, the likely sentence, delay and the United Kingdom’s international obligations must be assessed together. A person who deliberately evades service of a sentence attracts a particularly weighty public interest in extradition.

The appellant challenged an order made by the Senior District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 16 February 2015 for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve the remaining eight months of a sentence for driving while disqualified. He argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of himself, his wife and their 11-year-old son.

The appeal alleged that the Senior District Judge had applied an exceptionality or excessively high threshold, given disproportionate weight to the public interest and the likely sentence, and failed to give sufficient weight to family hardship, delay and an alleged false sense of security. The central issue was whether the extradition decision was legally or proportionately flawed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Senior District Judge had conducted a fair and lawful assessment of the competing Article 8 interests. The conclusion could not be impugned.
2. The governing question was whether interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and family was outweighed by the public interest in extradition. That interest included enforcing sentences, honouring international obligations and preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven. Under Norris v Government of United States of America No 2 [2010] 2 WLR 572 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic Genoa [2012] 3 WLR 90, family rights would ordinarily prevail only where the consequences of extradition were exceptionally severe. The issuing state could not be assumed to have undertaken the Article 8 proportionality assessment.
3. The court did not need to resolve the competing appellate approaches stated in Belbin v Regional Court Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin) and In re B (a child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911. The appeal failed under either approach. There was no material error of principle, irrationality, failure to consider relevant factors or other basis for intervention.
4. The Senior District Judge was entitled to attach significant weight to the appellant’s status as a fugitive who had left Poland after his custodial sentence was confirmed. He had considered the substantial disruption to the appellant’s family, including financial strain, loss of income and the close relationship with his son. The delay was explained by difficulties locating the appellant and did not materially reduce the public interest.
5. Even if the proportionality decision had to be taken afresh, extradition would remain proportionate. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a provisional one-week postponement of the order to allow a pending application in Poland to be resolved.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 16 February 2015, the Senior District Judge ordered extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The order was provisionally postponed for one week because of a pending hearing in Poland.