Zakrewski v Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland

Where separate extradition appeals raise the same proportionality and Article 8 issues, the appellate court may assess the matters together and take all relevant circumstances into account. This includes the practical effect of extradition under another warrant and any changed facts materially affecting the case. The court must still consider formal defects separately for each warrant. An extradition appeal is not a rehearing, but that does not prevent the court considering the proportionality balance in the round on the facts before it. The public interest in maintaining effective extradition arrangements, particularly where the requested person is a fugitive, may outweigh serious family hardship.

The appellant brought two statutory appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003. The first challenged a conviction warrant concerning a road traffic offence and followed District Judge Bayne’s decision of 7 January 2015. The second challenged an accusation warrant concerning burglary and handling stolen property and followed District Judge Goldspring’s decision of 17 July 2015. Both district judges rejected proportionality and Article 8 objections. The appeals were initially treated separately but were joined in the Administrative Court. The central issue was whether the proportionality of extradition should be assessed separately for each warrant or by taking the circumstances of both warrants together.

The two appeals were dismissed. The appellant was to be extradited under both the conviction warrant and the accusation warrant.

1. Joint consideration of proportionality. Although each appeal concerned a separate warrant and the appellate question was whether the relevant district judge’s decision was wrong, the same proportionality and Article 8 issues arose on substantially identical facts. The court could therefore consider the matters together. Under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, changed facts materially affecting the case could also be taken into account.
2. Limits of the approach. The essence of proportionality is to identify all relevant matters, balance the competing interests and assess the practical reality of extradition. This approach was consistent with Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), which confirmed that an extradition appeal is not a rehearing. Formal defects, however, must remain subject to separate consideration for each warrant.
3. Authorities on multiple warrants. The decisions in Zierzynski v Polish Judicial Authority [2014] EWHC 3453 (Admin), Zaljski v Circuit Court in Govzow Wielkopolski [2015] EWHC 1463 (Admin), Rozanski v District Court in Bydgoszcz [2015] EWHC 1470 (Admin) and Kalemba v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland and another [2015] EWHC 1880 (Admin) supported considering the practical effect of extradition under related warrants when assessing Article 8 and proportionality.
4. Application. The appellant’s family circumstances, including his mother’s serious illness, were given substantial weight. Nevertheless, the public interest in preserving the integrity of the requesting state’s legal system was particularly strong because the appellant had become a fugitive after receiving a compassionate deferral of sentence, relying on the same family circumstances. Taking all matters together, extradition under both warrants was proportionate.

• District Judge Bayne: on 7 January 2015, rejected the appellant’s proportionality and Article 8 challenge to the conviction warrant.
• District Judge Goldspring: on 17 July 2015, ordered extradition under the accusation warrant after rejecting proportionality, section 21 and section 21A arguments.
• High Court (Administrative Court): heard the appeals together and dismissed both appeals.