Pilich v District Court in Bielsko-Biala Poland

An appellate court reviewing an extradition decision on proportionality should dismiss the appeal where the lower court’s conclusion was the only possible view, correct, or one that could reasonably be reached. It should allow the appeal only where the conclusion was wrong or unsupportable.

An extradition warrant may satisfy dual criminality where its description, read as a whole, inevitably supports the inference that the requested person knew or believed goods were dishonestly obtained and dishonestly assisted their retention or disposal. The warrant need not identify the victim. Article 8 rights must be balanced against the substantial public interest in extradition, which will generally prevail unless the family consequences are exceptionally severe.

The appellant appealed against an order of District Judge Tempia at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of a Polish sentence of three years’ imprisonment for three offences involving the concealment and disassembly of cars.

Before the District Judge, the appellant challenged the particularisation of the first offence, relied on section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, and relied on Article 8. The District Judge rejected those objections. The appeal concerned whether the first offence was sufficiently particularised for dual criminality and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s family life.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellate approach to proportionality was that stated by Lord Neuberger in Re B (A child) [2013] 3 All ER 929. An appeal should be dismissed where the lower court’s view was the only possible view, correct, or a view which could reasonably be reached. It should be allowed where the view was wrong or unsupportable.
2. The first offence was sufficiently particularised under section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. The description of a person helping to conceal and disassemble a car, obtained through an unspecified criminal offence to the detriment of an unidentified victim, inevitably indicated dishonest acquisition and handling.
3. The conduct therefore disclosed the English offence of handling stolen goods under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968. The absence of a registration number, identified victim, or precise description of the original theft was not fatal. The warrant showed that the appellant knew or believed the vehicle to be stolen and dishonestly assisted its retention or disposal.
4. Article 8 required a balance between the appellant’s and his family’s private and family life and the weighty public interest in extradition. That interest included enforcing sentences, honouring international obligations, and preventing safe havens. The family consequences were serious, but the case was not one of the very rare cases in which extradition should be avoided. The appellant’s health, family circumstances, the age of the offences, and the absence of culpable delay did not outweigh the public interest.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tempia ordered extradition on 24 February 2015 and rejected the challenges based on particularisation, section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, and Article 8.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.