Sibilski v Regional Court and the Circuit Court in Warsaw (Poland)

In an extradition appeal under article 8, delay is relevant to proportionality but its weight depends on its cause and effect. A requested person who leaves the requesting state, fails to maintain contact with its authorities and thereby contributes to delay cannot ordinarily rely on unexplained delay as a powerful factor against extradition. The public interest in extradition will generally outweigh family-life rights unless the consequences for the family are exceptionally severe. The court must assess the practical impact, including whether the requested person is a sole carer and whether family or state support is available.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Iyundo’s order for his extradition to Poland under four European Arrest Warrants. The warrants concerned convictions for vehicle theft and related offending, together with one accusation warrant. The appellant relied on article 8, contending that the age of the offences, delay by the Polish and United Kingdom authorities, and the effect of extradition on his partner and two children made extradition disproportionate.

The District Judge accepted that there had been delay and family hardship, but found that the appellant was a fugitive and that the family consequences were not devastating. The central issue was whether the District Judge had erred in the article 8 balancing exercise.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s extradition was postponed pending enquiries concerning the possible expiry of the limitation period for enforcement of the sentence under the third warrant.
2. The appellate function was to identify error in the District Judge’s decision. The fact that the appellate judge might have reached a different conclusion at first instance was irrelevant.
3. Delay formed part of the article 8 balance, but the appellant himself materially caused the delay by leaving Poland, failing to provide his address and remaining outside the jurisdiction. The Polish authorities had also taken steps to locate him. This was materially different from Stryjecki v District Court of Lublin, Poland, [2016] EWHC 3309 (Admin), where no steps had been taken. The unexplained gaps in certification and communication did not make the authorities culpable in the circumstances.
4. The court applied the approach in Gomes v Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, [2009] UKHL 21, [2009] 1 WLR 1038, concerning the difficulty of attributing fault to a judicial authority. Delay nevertheless remained relevant. As explained in R (On the application of HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court, [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338, it may reduce the public interest and increase the impact on private and family life.
5. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that the family impact was not exceptionally severe. The appellant was not the sole carer, and extended family and state support were available. The seriousness of the offending and the outstanding sentences outweighed the article 8 interests.
6. The possible expiry of the enforcement limitation period did not itself alter the article 8 balance, but required further enquiries before extradition could proceed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Iyundo’s extradition order was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, subject to postponement of extradition pending enquiries concerning the third warrant.