Jabrzyk v The Special Crime Division - CPS

An appeal against extradition on Article 8 grounds will fail where the appellant advances no argument capable of showing that the lower court’s proportionality assessment was wrong. The appellate court may dismiss the appeal where the lower court has conducted the requisite balancing exercise and the challenge is unsupported.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Ikram’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment. The sole issue below was whether extradition was compatible with the appellant’s and his family’s Article 8 rights. The District Judge found that the appellant was not a fugitive and concluded that extradition would not disproportionately interfere with those rights. The appeal challenged that conclusion.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s case concerned extradition under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, with the sole ground of appeal being that the District Judge had wrongly concluded that extradition was not a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s and his family’s Article 8 rights.
2. The District Judge had made a factual finding that the appellant was not a fugitive and had conducted the requisite proportionality balancing exercise in accordance with the authorities.
3. At the hearing before the High Court, counsel for the appellant accepted that no argument could be advanced in support of the appeal. In those circumstances, and having considered the District Judge’s judgment, the court dismissed the appeal. No consequential orders were sought.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 4 December 2014, District Judge Ikram ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.