Budzik v Regional Court of Tarnow, Poland

In an extradition appeal engaging Article 8, the court must assess proportionality on the evidence actually before it. Serious effects on an appellant’s family do not establish disproportion unless the evidence demonstrates the asserted consequences. Where family circumstances are known to the local authority, the court should not infer, without evidence, that a child will be removed from the care of a parent. A person subject to a conditionally suspended sentence may become unlawfully at large when the conditions of suspension are breached; prior knowledge that the sentence has been activated is not necessarily required. The appellate court will uphold the extradition decision where the district judge identified the relevant circumstances, conducted the required balancing exercise and reached a proportionate conclusion.

The appellant challenged a decision of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted of fraud, received a conditionally suspended sentence, and failed to pay compensation, leading to activation of the sentence.

The principal issue before the district judge was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, his wife and their five-year-old daughter. On appeal, the appellant was permitted to rely on further evidence concerning his wife’s residence status and access to treatment for multiple sclerosis. He also argued that the district judge had wrongly treated him as a fugitive. The central questions were whether the asserted family consequences were supported by evidence and whether the district judge’s proportionality assessment and fugitive finding were legally sustainable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the order for extradition.
2. The appellant’s contention that his daughter would be taken into care, causing his wife to lose her right of residence and access to treatment, was unsupported by the evidence. Since the family circumstances were known to the local authority, there was no evidential basis for inferring that the authority would remove the child from her mother.
3. The district judge was entitled to find that the appellant was not the sole carer for his daughter and that the family’s circumstances were known to the local authority. The absence of information about what further resources the authority might provide did not justify the inference sought by the appellant.
4. The court rejected the submission that a person with a conditionally suspended sentence can become a fugitive only after learning that the sentence has been activated. Following Salbut v Circuit Court in Gliwice [2014] EWHC 4275 (Admin), the phrase unlawfully at large was capable of applying from the moment the conditions of the sentence were breached. The appellant knew that he had to pay compensation, failed to do so, and left Poland. He could therefore properly be treated as unlawfully at large from the time of that breach.
5. The district judge had recognised the severe impact extradition would have on the family, referred to the relevant authorities including Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), and conducted the required Article 8 balancing exercise. The High Court was not persuaded that the conclusion that extradition was proportionate was wrong.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court decision of 22 May 2015 was dismissed. The extradition order was upheld.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Grant ordered extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant.