Rutowski v Regional Court of Bialystok Poland

In an extradition case involving Article 8 rights, the court must balance interference with private and family life against the public interest in extradition. That public interest is constant and weighty, but its weight varies with the seriousness and nature of the offending. Delay may reduce the public interest and increase the impact on family life. Where the conduct would ordinarily have resulted in imprisonment if committed domestically, only very rare cases will justify refusing extradition on Article 8 grounds. Sentences under a European Arrest Warrant should generally be assessed cumulatively, unless the judicial authority agrees that separate consideration is appropriate.

The claimant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned sentences imposed for driving offences and a sexual assault. The claimant relied on his family life in the United Kingdom, rehabilitation from alcoholism, delay, voluntary surrender and the absence of family in Poland.

The District Judge accepted that extradition would interfere with private and family life but concluded that the public interest outweighed that interference. The central issue was whether the Article 8 circumstances justified allowing the appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court carried out the required Article 8 balancing exercise. The question was whether interference with the private and family lives of the claimant and his family was outweighed by the public interest in extradition.
2. That public interest included ensuring that convicted persons served their sentences, honouring treaty obligations and avoiding safe havens. It carried great weight, although the weight varied with the nature and seriousness of the offences. Delay could diminish the public interest and increase the impact on family life. Ordinarily, the public interest would prevail unless the consequences for family life were exceptionally severe, applying the approach explained in Norris v The United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25.
3. The sentences should generally be considered cumulatively rather than separately. Nowak v Circuit Law Court in Swindica, Poland [2014] EWHC 3466 (Admin) had proceeded on the basis of the judicial authority’s agreement that separate consideration was appropriate. It was not authority for a general rule that each sentence must be considered separately.
4. The offending was sufficiently serious that, had it been committed in the United Kingdom, imprisonment would have followed. In such circumstances, the guidance in HH indicated that refusal of extradition on an Article 8 basis should occur only in very rare cases. The claimant’s family circumstances, rehabilitation, delay, surrender and lack of family in Poland did not make this such a case.

The claimant appealed to the Administrative Court from the order of District Judge Blake at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 27 February 2015. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.