Kolodziejczyk, R (on the application of) v District Court Wroclaw Poland

For dual criminality in extradition proceedings, the court examines the conduct alleged in the warrant, rather than descriptive background. Conduct consisting of hiding property belonging to others may satisfy the conduct requirement for theft, including its implicit dishonesty and intention permanently to deprive, even where the property comprises identity documents and the requesting state has a separate, more specific offence.

In an Article 8 assessment, a district judge must balance the public interest in extradition against the requested person’s private and family circumstances. The balance is not permanently fixed, but an appellate court will not interfere merely because later evidence or changed circumstances might permit a different view.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Zani on 12 June 2015 for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant issued by the District Court in Wroclaw on 29 September 2014.

The warrant concerned convictions for theft of a vehicle and concealing identity documents contrary to Article 276 of the Polish Penal Code. The appellant argued that the second offence did not satisfy the dual-criminality requirement under section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003. He also challenged the district judge’s conclusion that extradition would be compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relying on his father’s deteriorating dementia and his caring responsibilities.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge had applied the correct legal approach to dual criminality and Article 8.
2. For the dual-criminality question under section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question was whether the conduct alleged in the warrant would constitute a criminal offence in England and Wales. The conduct identified for the second offence was that the appellant hid property belonging to others in his flat. That conduct was clearly consistent with theft, including an implicit allegation of dishonest appropriation with an intention permanently to deprive the owners.
3. The fact that the property consisted of identity cards was immaterial. The existence of Article 275 of the Polish Penal Code, which more closely resembled theft in its ingredients, did not prevent the conduct from also constituting the offence described in Article 276. Further information supplied by the Polish authorities could not undermine the contents of the warrant.
4. The Article 8 assessment required a balancing exercise. The district judge had taken account of the staleness and seriousness of the offences, the sentence remaining to be served, the appellant’s settled life and recovery from addiction, and the substantial hardship likely to be caused to his parents, particularly his father who suffered from dementia.
5. Although a balance struck by a district judge was not frozen in time, the later general practitioner’s letter and cognitive test results did not show that the assessment was flawed. The hardship, though substantial, did not outweigh the public interest in extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge: On 12 June 2015, District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Poland.