Gorniak v Regional Court Wroclaw-Krzyki (Poland)

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8 rights, the appellate court must respect the first-instance judge’s evaluative balancing exercise unless the conclusion is legally flawed or plainly wrong. Relevant considerations include the seriousness and circumstances of the offending, delay, the requested person’s responsibility for that delay, the effect on family life, and the public importance of extradition. Evidence about the family’s financial position may be material, but its absence does not necessarily invalidate the decision where the issue was not properly raised below. A person who develops private and family life in the knowledge that extradition remains possible may receive less weight from the passage of time.

Patrik Gorniak appealed against an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, made on 16 November 2015, requiring his extradition to Poland to serve a two-year sentence. The sentence had originally been suspended, but was activated after he committed a further similar offence and failed to attend the relevant hearing in Poland.

The appellant relied on the passage of time, his rehabilitation, his partner and young child, and the possible financial and immigration consequences of extradition. The central issue was whether extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with the private and family life protected by Article 8.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court declined to admit further information supplied by Poland because it could and should have been obtained earlier. The appellant had insufficient opportunity to obtain expert assistance or challenge its accuracy and completeness.
2. The District Judge had carried out the balancing exercise required by Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Ors [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), identifying the factors favouring and opposing extradition. The High Court’s task was not to conduct the balancing exercise afresh, but to decide whether the conclusion was one to which the District Judge was entitled to reach.
3. The District Judge had considered the relevant factors, including the offending, the activated suspended sentence, the appellant’s fugitive status, delay, and the impact on his family. The possible financial position of the appellant’s partner was not specifically addressed, but there had been no evidence about entitlement to benefits and no particular submission on that issue below.
4. The passage of time carried limited weight because much of it resulted from the appellant’s own conduct. He had formed his private and family life in the United Kingdom knowing that he was wanted to serve the Polish sentence and had sought to avoid doing so. The offending was not especially serious, but it was a course of offending which continued after imposition of a suspended sentence.
5. Balancing the competing considerations, the District Judge was entitled to conclude that extradition would not be disproportionate. The appeal therefore failed and was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed; the District Judge’s conclusion was upheld as one to which she was entitled to come.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 16 November 2015, District Judge Rose ordered extradition to Poland pursuant to a conviction European Arrest Warrant.