Wolszlegier v District Court in Gdansk, Poland

In an extradition appeal, passage of time is not oppressive merely because several years have elapsed since the offences. The court must assess the circumstances of the delay, including whether it was attributable to the requested person. Article 8 rights of the requested person and family members may be engaged, but extradition remains proportionate where the offences are sufficiently serious and the lower court made findings available on the evidence. An appellate court will not interfere with the extradition decision absent an error of law or a material evidential basis for doing so.

The appellant challenged the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle dated 1 December 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a conviction for six fraud offences committed in 2008, with 1 year, 11 months and 27 days of imprisonment remaining.

The appeal raised whether extradition would be oppressive because of the passage of time under section 14 of the relevant Act, and whether extradition was proportionate having regard to the appellant’s and his family’s rights under Article 8. The central issues were the significance of the delay and whether the district judge had lawfully assessed the Article 8 balance.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to establish that his surrender would be oppressive because of the passage of time. The offences had occurred more than six years earlier, but the overall delay was not unusual in extradition cases. The district judge had found that the appellant left Poland knowing that he had committed a further offence and that he had failed to leave a forwarding address. The delay was therefore materially attributable to his own conduct.
2. The offences could not be characterised as trivial. They might attract immediate custodial sentences in the United Kingdom, particularly because a further offence had been committed during the period of a suspended sentence. The fact that the appellant had repaid all or most of the money did not make extradition oppressive.
3. The appellant’s and his family’s Article 8 rights were engaged. The appellate court nevertheless found no error of law in the district judge’s findings or proportionality assessment. The updated evidence did not materially advance the case beyond the evidence already considered.
4. There was no basis for departing from the district judge’s decision. The extradition order accordingly stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• Senior District Judge Riddle: On 1 December 2014, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant.