Abasuru v Regional Court In Opole, Poland

A conviction European Arrest Warrant must contain sufficient particulars of the conviction to identify the offence and permit relevant extradition bars, framework-list classification and dual criminality issues to be considered. The required level of detail depends on the circumstances. A joint enterprise may be sufficiently described even though the warrant gives fuller particulars of one participant’s conduct than another’s.

On an Article 8 challenge, the interests of children are a primary consideration, but they are not necessarily paramount. The court must correct material errors in the lower court’s reasoning and undertake the required balancing exercise. Serious offending, the sentence remaining, fugitive status and the absence of sole-carer circumstances may outweigh the family consequences of extradition.

The appellant challenged a decision by District Judge Goldspring dated 3 December 2015 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought his surrender to serve a two-year sentence for conspiracy to export heroin.

Permission was granted on two grounds: whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars of conviction under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s and his family’s rights under Article 8 ECHR. The appellant relied particularly on evidence of his wife’s depression and the interests of their three young children.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The court held that the warrant contained sufficient particulars of conviction for the purposes of section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. It identified a joint enterprise involving three named participants, the relevant period and places, the type, quantity and value of the heroin, the attempted importation, the role of one participant in swallowing and transporting the drugs, and the provisions of Polish law said to have been infringed. Those particulars were sufficient to confirm the framework-list classification. The appellant did not identify any particular bar which he was unable to raise because of an absence of information.
2. The court did not need to resolve the apparent conflict between Constantin Sandi v The Craiova Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin), Howell v Deputy Attorney General Court of Appeal of Douai, France [2012] EWHC 150 (Admin) and King v Public Prosecutors of Villefranche sur Saone, France [2015] EWHC 3670 (Admin). On either approach, the warrant was adequate.
3. Ground 2 dismissed. The District Judge had materially erred by stating that the wife’s depression was unsupported by evidence and by failing to address the psychiatric and witness evidence adequately. The appellate question was nevertheless whether the District Judge had reached the wrong decision, applying the approach in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin).
4. The court considered the children’s interests as a primary consideration under H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2002] UKSC 25. It took account of the wife’s continuing moderate-severe depression and the likelihood of deterioration if extradition occurred. However, there was no evidence that, with community support and treatment, she would be unable to care for the children.
5. The public interest in honouring the extradition request, the seriousness of the offence, the substantial custodial sentence remaining, the appellant’s fugitive status and the fact that this was not a sole-carer case outweighed the suffering caused to the wife and children. Extradition was not a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against District Judge Goldspring’s order of 3 December 2015 requiring extradition.