Sobierajski v Regional Court In Lodz

In an extradition appeal involving family and private life, the court must conduct a careful balancing exercise between the factors favouring extradition and the interference with the appellant’s family relationships. Delay may be relevant, but its weight depends on its cause and effect. Where the appellant was responsible for the principal delay, and the delay has preserved rather than weakened the relevant family relationship, it may carry little weight. An omission by the extradition judge to address a factor expressly does not necessarily invalidate the decision if, on the evidence, the factor could not have affected the result. The court may protect a dependent child’s immediate interests by delaying the commencement of extradition.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Nina Tempia on 14 September 2016 directing his extradition to Poland to serve the unserved balance of a sentence imposed for fraud. Permission to appeal was granted on the issue whether extradition would infringe the appellant’s right to respect for family and private life, particularly that of his 17-year-old daughter.

The daughter lived with the appellant in England, was emotionally dependent on him, and was preparing for A-level examinations before planned university study. The appellant argued that the district judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the delay before the European arrest warrant was issued and to the daughter’s immediate educational circumstances. The central issues were whether the balancing exercise was legally or materially flawed and what protection, if any, should be given to the daughter’s immediate future.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The district judge had conducted an impeccable Celinski balancing exercise. She had addressed the serious obstacle arising from the daughter’s dependence on the appellant and had been entitled to conclude that the factors favouring extradition outweighed the factors against it.

2. Although the district judge had not expressly addressed delay, that omission did not undermine the decision. The delay had preserved the daughter’s relationship with the appellant during vulnerable years of childhood. It carried little weight in the appellant’s favour because he had caused the principal delay by failing to notify the Polish authorities of his whereabouts and failing to attend to serve the remainder of his sentence.

3. The district judge had also not expressly addressed the daughter’s immediate future. That omission did not require the extradition order to be set aside. The court could protect her interests by postponing the sealing of the order until after her examinations and the anticipated commencement or settlement of her university studies.

4. The extradition warrant remained well founded. The order dismissing the appeal was not to be drawn up and sealed until 2 October 2017. The period for extradition was to begin 14 days after the order was drawn up and sealed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the extradition order was dismissed. The order was deferred and the timing of extradition was adjusted to protect the appellant’s daughter’s immediate educational interests.