Parlinska v District Court In Bydgoszcz (Poland)

On an extradition appeal, the court may consider fresh evidence showing a material change in circumstances since the lower court’s decision. Where that evidence concerns a critical Article 8 issue and is decisive, the appellate court may discharge the appellant if the lower court would probably have reached a different conclusion.

Extradition may be disproportionate where the appellant is the sole carer of young children and, on extradition, they would have to enter care, with a risk that they would be separated. Such cases are expected to be rare, but the children’s interests may outweigh the public interest in extradition.

The claimant appealed against a District Judge’s order for her extradition to Poland pursuant to a conviction European arrest warrant. She had been convicted in her absence of seven shoplifting offences and had an outstanding two-year custodial sentence.

The sole ground of appeal was that extradition would breach the claimant’s and her children’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The District Judge had concluded that the claimant was not the sole carer because the children’s former partner had indicated that he would care for them.

Following permission to appeal, further evidence was obtained. It suggested that the former partner was no longer willing or able to care safely for the children, and that no other person in the United Kingdom was available. The central issue was whether that fresh evidence materially changed the proportionality assessment.

1. The appeal succeeded. The court was not persuaded that the District Judge had erred on the evidence available at the original hearing. The District Judge had properly considered the claimant’s rehabilitation, good character, mental health, private and family life, and the factors supporting extradition.
2. There had nevertheless been a material change of circumstances since the original decision. The updated social-work evidence, the local authority’s inability to contact the former partner, and the claimant’s further statement supported the conclusion that she was now the children’s sole carer.
3. The court was not satisfied that the former partner had the ability to care safely for the children or meet their needs. Nor was there evidence identifying an alternative carer in the United Kingdom or explaining how social services would keep the children together.
4. In those circumstances, extradition would require the two young children to enter care and might result in their separation. That consequence was disproportionate. The fresh evidence was decisive and would have led the District Judge to decide the case differently.
5. This was one of the very rare cases in which the children’s interests required the claimant’s discharge. The claimant was accordingly discharged and the appeal allowed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order and ordered the claimant’s discharge.
• District Judge: ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland on 2 June 2016.