Czolowski v Regional Court Radom Poland

On an appeal concerning extradition and Article 8 rights, the appellate court reviews the lower court’s decision by applying public law principles. It does not conduct the proportionality assessment afresh unless the lower court’s reasoning discloses legal error. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offences, delay, the appellant’s personal circumstances, the sentence likely to have been imposed domestically, and the effect of time already served. A fugitive’s conduct and the strength of the connection formed in the requesting state are also material. Extradition remains proportionate where the lower court’s assessment cannot properly be faulted.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Blake’s decision at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence imposed for drug offences. Before the District Judge, he relied on his medical condition under section 25 and on proportionality under section 21 in relation to his Article 8 rights. The medical ground was abandoned on appeal. The central issue was whether the District Judge had erred in concluding that extradition would not disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s Article 8 rights.

1. The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed. The court found no basis on which to fault the District Judge’s conclusion that extradition was proportionate under Article 8.
2. When considering Article 8 issues on appeal, the appellate court conducts a review applying public law principles. The court expressly took into account the guidance in Belbin v the Regional Court of Lille, France, [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin).
3. The proportionality assessment required consideration of the seriousness and nature of the Polish offences, including the trafficking element; the passage of time; the appellant’s age, maturity and life developed in the United Kingdom; his family circumstances; the sentence likely to have been imposed in the United Kingdom; the period already served; and his status as a fugitive.
4. The appellant had no family ties or children in the United Kingdom, and had left Poland after learning that an arrest warrant had been issued. Those circumstances materially weakened the Article 8 case. The fact that he had served a substantial part of the sentence did not make extradition disproportionate.
5. The medical ground had been rejected below and was not pursued on appeal. The appeal therefore failed and was dismissed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Blake ordered extradition to Poland on 28 November 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.