Bratkowski v Regional Court Bialystok

In an extradition appeal engaging Article 8, delay attributable to the requested person is not excluded from the balancing exercise, but it carries less weight than delay for which the person is not responsible. The court must balance the person’s private and family life against the public interest in honouring extradition obligations. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offending, any previous similar offending, the time elapsed, the reasons for delay, the requested person’s conduct during the intervening period, the life established in the requested state and the remaining sentence. Where the offending is serious and the delay is substantially attributable to the requested person, interference with established private life and business interests may be insufficient to make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant challenged the decision of District Judge Goldspring dated 27 March 2015 ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction warrant for robbery. The offence was committed in January 2006 and a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment had been imposed, with part of the sentence already served.

Before the District Judge, the principal remaining issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s Article 8 rights and those of his partner and children. The appellant relied on the passage of almost ten years, his open life and employment in the United Kingdom, his family relationships and the effect of extradition on his business. The central issue was whether the Article 8 balance required his discharge.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Administrative Court upheld the District Judge’s conclusion that extradition was proportionate.
2. The delay was relevant to the Article 8 balancing exercise, even though the appellant had been a fugitive. His responsibility for a substantial part of the delay meant that the ten-year period carried less weight than it otherwise might have done. It was wrong to treat responsibility for delay as excluding the delay altogether.
3. The offending was serious. Although it concerned the theft of a mobile telephone, it involved violence because the victim was hit. The appellant had also committed a similar offence previously. The substantial outstanding term of imprisonment therefore weighed significantly in favour of extradition.
4. The court took account of the appellant’s private life, family relationships and the effect of extradition on the painting and decorating business he had established in the United Kingdom. Those matters engaged Article 8 and caused real hardship, but they did not outweigh the public interest in honouring Poland’s extradition request.
5. In the circumstances, the court could identify no alternative outcome to that reached by the District Judge.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — [2016] EWHC 3515 (Admin): appeal against the extradition decision dismissed.
2. District Judge Goldspring — decision dated 27 March 2015: ordered extradition to Poland under the conviction warrant.