Jaroszynski v Polish Judicial Authority

For dual criminality under the Extradition Act, the court applies the conduct test to the conduct described in the warrant, disregarding mere narrative background but considering allegations relevant to the corresponding domestic offence. Foreign measurements may be converted into domestic units where the conversion is sufficiently clear, including by judicial notice of undisputed conversion factors. In an Article 8 extradition challenge, the interference with private and family life must be balanced against the constant and weighty public interest in extradition. The public interest is especially substantial where a convicted person remains a fugitive and has a significant sentence outstanding. Serious family hardship does not make extradition incompatible with Article 8 where adequate support is available and the case falls well short of that threshold.

Maciej Jaroszynski appealed against the decision of a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned three Polish convictions, including drink-driving offences and an assault on police officers. He argued that two drink-driving convictions did not correspond to offences under English law and that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life, including the family life of his partner and young daughter. The central questions were whether the Polish breath-alcohol readings could be converted into English measurements sufficient to establish dual criminality, and whether the Article 8 balance favoured refusal of extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order was upheld.
2. Under section 65(3)(b) of the Extradition Act, the relevant question was whether the conduct described in the warrant would constitute an offence under the law of England and Wales. The conduct test in Norris v United States of America [2008] UKHL 16 applied. Mere narrative background was disregarded, but allegations relevant to the description of the corresponding domestic offence were taken into account.
3. The court could infer the necessary mental element from the conduct described, consistently with Zak v Poland [2008] EWHC 470 (Admin). It could also take judicial notice of undisputed conversion factors between Polish and English units. The lowest Polish reading converted to 57 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, above the English limit of 35 micrograms. The drink-driving conduct therefore constituted an English offence under section 65(3), and the section 10 objection failed.
4. The Article 8 issue required a proportionality balance between the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and family members and the public interest in extradition, as explained in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25. That public interest included returning convicted persons to serve their sentences, honouring treaty obligations and preventing safe havens.
5. The appellant was a fugitive and had more than two years of imprisonment outstanding. Although extradition would cause serious hardship to him, his partner and their child, the partner was supported by family and Social Services. The case was not close to incompatibility with Article 8.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 6 November 2014.