Pulik v Judicial Authority of Poland, District Court of Lubin

On an appeal under Extradition Act 2003, the High Court reviews, rather than rehearing, the district judge’s Article 8 proportionality decision. Intervention is justified where the judge misapplied established principles, made a material finding which no reasonable judge could have made, omitted or relied on an irrelevant material factor, or reached an irrational or perverse conclusion. Extradition engages the private and family lives of the requested person and family members, but there is no exceptionality test. The strong public interest in extradition generally outweighs Article 8 rights unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe. The seriousness of the offences and delay may affect the balance. Sympathy for family members, without more, does not make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland of swindling, attempted swindling and theft, and had failed to surrender to serve sentences totalling two years. He later came to the United Kingdom. Two European Arrest Warrants were issued, and District Judge Devas at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003. He argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s rights under Article 8, relying on the effect on his partner and child, the seriousness of the offences, and delay by the Polish authorities. The central issue was whether the district judge’s proportionality decision should be disturbed on review.

1. Appeal dismissed. The statutory power to allow the appeal arose under section 27(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 only if the district judge ought to have answered a question differently and would then have been required to discharge the appellant.
2. The court followed the review approach stated in Douglas Belbin v The Regional Court of Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149. It could not intervene merely because it would attach different weight to factors or reach a different overall value judgment. Intervention required one of the identified legal, factual, evidential or rationality errors.
3. Applying H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, the court had to examine the interference with family life and balance it against the public interest in extradition. There was no exceptionality test. The public interest was weighty, though its weight varied with the nature and seriousness of the offending. Delay could reduce that weight and increase the impact on family life.
4. The interference with the appellant’s partner and child was substantial, but the consequences were not exceptionally severe. The offences were not of the highest gravity but were not trivial. The delay was mainly attributable to the appellant’s departure from Poland without notifying the authorities, despite his obligations. The district judge was entitled to conclude that extradition was proportionate and compatible with Article 8.
5. The appeal therefore failed. Extradition was to proceed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Devas ordered the appellant’s extradition on 15 December 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.