Korkosz, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court, Warszawa-Praga, Warsaw

[2015] EWHC 698 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2015] EWHC 698 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
2 February 2015
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Human rights Extradition proportionality
Keywords
extradition European arrest warrant Article 8 family life deliberate evasion of sentence respect for foreign judicial decisions
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

In extradition proceedings, interference with an appellant’s family and private life under Article 8 does not necessarily make extradition disproportionate. Where the appellant has deliberately evaded serving a sentence imposed by another jurisdiction, compelling personal circumstances must be sufficiently strong to outweigh the importance of respecting that jurisdiction’s judicial decisions. A recent improvement in conduct and domestic circumstances may be relevant, but will not ordinarily justify refusing extradition where the sentence remains outstanding because of the appellant’s own evasion.

Factual background

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s decision of 11 November 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned a sentence of one year and two months’ imprisonment for four offences, including assault, shoplifting and assaulting a police officer.

The appellant relied on Article 8 and evidence from his partner concerning a substantial recent improvement in his life and attitudes. The central issue was whether those circumstances outweighed the interference with his Article 8 rights and the importance of respecting the Polish courts’ decisions.

Held

  1. Appeal dismissed. The interference with the appellant’s Article 8 rights was accepted. His relationship and recent change in circumstances were relevant to the assessment.
  2. Those circumstances were not sufficiently strong to outweigh the importance of respecting the judicial decisions of another jurisdiction. The appellant had deliberately evaded serving the sentence, and the need to return him to face that sentence was a consequence of his own conduct.
  3. The fact that extradition would require him to serve the Polish sentence in addition to another sentence already ordered did not alter the balance. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • District judge: On 11 November 2014, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant.
  • High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.