Cwikla v Polish Judicial Aurhtority

In an extradition appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court must balance the public interest in honouring extradition obligations and addressing serious offending against the impact on private and family life. Delay since the offending is relevant because it may reduce the public interest and increase the effect on family life, but its weight depends on the reasons for the delay. The impact on young and unborn children must receive specific consideration. Hardship caused by extradition is not, by itself, sufficient to make extradition disproportionate. The availability of appropriate facilities for pregnant prisoners and mothers with young children may be relevant to the assessment.

The appellant appealed against a decision of District Judge Zani ordering her extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. She had been sentenced in Poland for serious commercial drug offending and had approximately one year, eight months and two days of imprisonment remaining.

The appeal relied solely on Article 8. The appellant argued that the District Judge had failed to consider the delay since the offences, had wrongly treated her as a fugitive, and had inadequately assessed the effect of extradition on her husband, her six-year-old daughter and her unborn child. The central issue was whether the District Judge’s proportionality assessment was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The question was whether the District Judge’s Article 8 conclusion was wrong.
2. The District Judge had omitted express consideration of the delay since the offending. Delay was relevant because it could diminish the public interest in extradition and increase the impact on family life. However, it was not decisive here. Much of the delay was attributable to the appellant, who left Poland knowing that she still had a sentence to serve and did not remain in contact with the Polish authorities.
3. The District Judge was entitled to regard the appellant as unlawfully at large and a fugitive. She had been released because of her pregnancy, but had left Poland without surrendering herself or maintaining contact with the authorities.
4. The effect of extradition on young children was a relevant factor in the Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski balance, but hardship did not automatically make extradition disproportionate. The evidence showed that the appellant and her husband both cared for their daughter and identified possible assistance from family members.
5. It would have been preferable for the District Judge to consider specifically the position of the unborn child. The approach in domestic sentencing, reflected in R v Petherick and R v Roman (Ana-Maria), illustrated the importance of considering the effect of custody on young and unborn children. The further information from Poland established that suitable prison facilities, healthcare and arrangements existed for pregnant prisoners and for children to remain with their mothers until the age of three.
6. Despite the severe hardship to the family, the seriousness of the offending and the public interest in complying with extradition obligations meant that the District Judge’s assessment was not wrong. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Zani’s decision of 21 April 2017 was dismissed. The extradition order remained in force.