Wardzala v Regional Court in Tarnow (Poland)

On an Article 8 extradition appeal, the appellate court must reassess the proportionality balance where fresh evidence is admitted. It should consider the public interest in extradition, including the seriousness of the offending, fugitive status and the need to honour extradition arrangements, against the individual and family consequences of removal. Fresh evidence does not automatically displace a careful balancing exercise undertaken by the district judge. The appeal succeeds only if the additional material alters the balance sufficiently to make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Barrie on 17 July 2015. A European Arrest Warrant had been issued by the Regional Court in Tarnow for the appellant to serve a sentence imposed for theft and robbery offences. The sole ground of appeal was that extradition would breach his and his family’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, pursuant to section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The appellant relied on fresh evidence concerning his partner’s financial circumstances and his young daughter’s kidney condition. The central issue was whether that evidence upset the district judge’s finely balanced conclusion in favour of extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The district judge had conducted an impeccable Celinski balancing exercise and was fully entitled to order extradition.

2. Fresh evidence admitted on appeal should be considered where it may be critical to the well-being of a child. The court admitted the medical evidence because it was substantially incontrovertible and potentially important to the child’s welfare.

3. In the light of admissible fresh evidence, the appellate court must re-conduct the Article 8 balancing exercise. It may nevertheless uphold the original decision where the additional material does not materially alter the balance.

4. The factors supporting extradition included the appellant’s fugitive status, the comparative seriousness of the offences and the need to honour extradition arrangements. The countervailing factors included the age of the offences, the appellant’s youth when they were committed, his rehabilitation and the substantial emotional and financial dependence of his partner and daughter.

5. The further evidence added little weight against extradition. The daughter’s medical needs and the family’s dependence had already been taken into account in substance. Extradition therefore remained proportionate under Article 8.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Mitting dismissed the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Barrie on 17 July 2015.