Z v Regional Court In Poznan Poland

In extradition proceedings, the court must have sufficient reliable evidence to conduct a fair Article 8 proportionality assessment, including proper consideration of a young child’s interests. A requested person’s inability, when unrepresented and assisted by an interpreter, to present material evidence may make the determination unfair. The assessment remains fact-sensitive and does not create a general entitlement to adjournment. Extradition proceedings do not determine a criminal charge, or the civil rights of a non-UK citizen, for Article 6 purposes; adjournment applications are therefore governed by ordinary common-law principles of fair case management.

The appellant appealed, with permission from Cranston J, against District Judge Snow’s order of 24 March 2016 requiring her extradition to Poland for prosecution for two alleged fraud offences. Her solicitor’s application to adjourn, pending determination of legal aid, had been refused, and the appellant presented her case herself through an interpreter.

The appeal challenged the refusal to adjourn, the resulting assessment of the appellant’s and her daughter’s Article 8 rights, and the conclusion under Extradition Act 2003 that extradition was proportionate. Fresh expert evidence concerning the likely effect on the child of separation from her mother was produced on appeal.

1. Appeal allowed. The extradition order was discharged, with an order for assessment of publicly funded costs.
2. Adjournment. Extradition proceedings do not involve determination of a criminal charge, and, for a person who is not a UK citizen, do not determine civil rights for Article 6 purposes. The adjournment issue therefore fell to be determined by ordinary common-law principles governing the just and fair conduct of hearings. The District Judge’s case-management reasons were proper, and refusal of the adjournment was not itself an error of law.
3. Fresh evidence. The court accepted the expert report under the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 and considered that it properly could and should receive it.
4. Article 8 assessment. The District Judge had correctly recognised the strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and had carried out the balancing exercise required by Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin). However, the evidence before him did not adequately address the practical consequences for the child if the appellant were extradited. It did not sufficiently address the partner’s ability to combine work and childcare, his legal parental position, or the child’s ability to visit her mother.
5. The fresh expert evidence materially strengthened the case concerning the child’s emotional welfare and the partner’s parenting capacity. The court concluded that the Article 8 rights of the appellant and her family could not fairly or properly be determined on the incomplete presentation available below. With the full evidence, the District Judge would have concluded that extradition was not necessary in a democratic society and would have refused it.
6. The conclusion was expressly dependent on the particular facts and provided no precedent or encouragement for routine adjournment applications in extradition proceedings.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from District Judge Snow’s order of 24 March 2016 was allowed. The extradition order was discharged.
• Permission: Permission to appeal was granted by Cranston J.