Lukaszewski v Regional Court Gdansk Poland

In an extradition appeal involving family life under Article 8 ECHR, the court must assess proportionality by weighing the interference with the individual and family against the public interest in extradition. The age and seriousness of the alleged offending, family hardship and the public interest in expedition are relevant. A later development will not necessarily alter the balance reached below, particularly where the appellant had previously failed to take available opportunities to address the proceedings. The appellate court will uphold the decision if the lower court considered all relevant matters and its conclusion was not wrong.

The appellant challenged District Judge Ikram’s decision of 20 March 2015 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He was wanted for trial for an alleged 2007 fraud involving forged signatures and mobile telephones obtained on credit, with an alleged loss of about £925.

The District Judge considered delay, the seriousness of the alleged offending, the appellant’s family circumstances, the public interest in expedition, and the appellant’s arguments under section 21A and Article 8 ECHR. After an adjournment before King J, the appellant relied on an indication that he could be interviewed at the Polish Consul in Manchester. The central issue was whether that development materially changed the proportionality balance.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s decision to order extradition was upheld.
2. The proportionality assessment under Article 8 required consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the delay since the alleged offending, its seriousness, the effect of extradition on the appellant and his family, and the public interest in expedition. The District Judge had addressed the section 21A and Article 8 arguments and had considered those matters.
3. The indication that the appellant might be interviewed in Manchester did not materially undermine the District Judge’s conclusion. The Polish authorities had previously identified opportunities in 2013 to arrange an interview at a convenient time, but those opportunities had not been taken up. No interview had occurred after the later adjournment, and the appellant accepted that the matter could not be adjourned further.
4. The later information therefore did not change the balance dramatically. The District Judge’s conclusion that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s or his family’s Article 8 rights was not wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Ikram’s extradition order dated 20 March 2015 was dismissed.