Kalemba v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland

In assessing proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, judicial guidelines are a floor rather than a ceiling. The court retains an unfettered discretion to apply the statutory criteria and must weigh the relevant factors for itself. An offence may remain sufficiently serious even where the alleged financial loss is uncertain and the value of property has depreciated. In considering Article 8 and oppression arising from delay, the court must assess the practical impact of the extradition in its full context. Where extradition under another warrant is imminent, that circumstance may materially reduce the additional impact of a second warrant.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Blake’s decision of 24 March 2014 ordering extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. One warrant concerned a conviction for fraud and carried a remaining sentence of one year and two months. The other sought his extradition to stand trial for an alleged fraud involving the transfer of a car.

Leave to appeal was granted in relation to proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, family life under Article 8 of the Convention, and oppression by reason of delay under section 14. The central issues were whether extradition under the second warrant was disproportionate or oppressive and whether it was barred by Article 8.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had not erred in concluding that extradition under the accusation warrant would not be disproportionate under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The proportionality guidance considered in Miraszewski v District Court in Turon, Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin) was relevant. The guidance was a floor rather than a ceiling for assessing seriousness and was directed principally at offences at the very bottom of the scale. The judge retained an unfettered discretion to apply the statutory criteria and had to weigh the relevant factors personally.
3. The alleged conduct retained an element of seriousness. The uncertain loss suffered by the bank did not make the offence insufficiently serious. The alleged depreciation in the car’s value was irrelevant because the finance agreement required payment of an agreed sum irrespective of depreciation.
4. The appellant’s family circumstances were important to the Article 8 and section 14 arguments. However, the appellant was already due to be extradited under the conviction warrant to serve a sentence of one year and two months. That substantially diminished the additional impact of extradition under the second warrant.
5. Applying the analysis required by Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), Article 8 did not bar extradition. The passage of time did not make extradition oppressive. Extradition under the second warrant was required.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from District Judge Blake’s decision of 24 March 2014 ordering extradition to Poland; appeal dismissed.