Pluciennik, R (On the Application Of) v Circuit Court, Swidnica, Poland

In an extradition appeal engaging Article 8 rights, the existence of a partner and children does not by itself make extradition disproportionate. The court must assess the strength of the requested person’s private and family life rights alongside the seriousness and circumstances of the offending and the consequences of extradition. Where the requested person deliberately left the requesting state to avoid imprisonment, the personal Article 8 case may be very weak. An extradition decision will not be disturbed merely because the lower court’s reasoning was imperfect if its ultimate conclusion was not wrong.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge McPhee’s decision of 24 March 2015 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling approximately fourteen months for driving offences involving excess alcohol. He relied principally on the Article 8 rights of himself, his partner and their two children.

The appellant had moved to the United Kingdom after committing the offences and before being sentenced. The central issue was whether the family circumstances made extradition disproportionate. The court also considered the effect of a pending Polish application to stay the imprisonment order.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge’s decision to order extradition could not be impugned. Although the reasons might not have been satisfactory in every respect, the ultimate decision was not wrong.
2. The appellant’s own Article 8 position was very weak. He had knowingly left Poland while aware that he was due to be sentenced, in circumstances amounting to fleeing from justice. The offences were treated as serious and involved driving with excess alcohol on three occasions.
3. The Article 8 rights of the appellant’s partner and children did not make extradition disproportionate. The partner worked part-time and might face difficulty continuing work while caring for the children, but she appeared to be exercising Treaty rights independently of the appellant and might retain a right to remain in the United Kingdom with financial support until his return.
4. The anticipated sentence was approximately fourteen months, and the court noted that the appellant might not have to serve the whole period. A Polish application to stay imprisonment, if successful, would be relevant because a warrant based on imprisonment would be inconsistent with a deferred need to serve the sentence.
5. The dismissal was directed not to take effect immediately. It was postponed for five weeks to allow the Polish court to decide the pending application, and the Crown Prosecution Service was directed to notify the Polish judicial authority of the importance of deciding it within the stated period.

• District Judge McPhee: on 24 March 2015 ordered extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling approximately fourteen months.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, with the dismissal postponed for five weeks pending the Polish court’s decision on an application to stay imprisonment.