Szczudlo v District Court in Krakow (Poland)

In an extradition appeal raising family-life rights, the court must assess proportionality by balancing the effect of extradition on the family against the public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a haven for international criminals.

Where material evidence was unavailable at the extradition hearing, the appellate court may conduct the proportionality assessment afresh. The existence of severe difficulties for a child, including a child with autism, does not itself make extradition disproportionate. The court must assess the likely impact, available family and public support, the seriousness and age of the offences, outstanding sentences, and the requested person’s conduct.

The applicant appealed against District Judge Snow’s decision of 12 May 2016 ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned four offences, including robbery, attempting to pervert the course of justice, possession of cannabis and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The sole issue pursued on appeal was whether extradition was a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s rights under article 8 of the Convention, contrary to section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. The applicant relied on new psychological evidence concerning the severe autism of one of his children and the likely effect of separation. The central issue was whether that evidence required the proportionality balance to produce a different result.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s decision was not wrong, and extradition was not disproportionate.
2. The refusal to adjourn the extradition hearing was within the District Judge’s case-management powers. At the time, the evidence established only that the child was being investigated for possible autism. No sufficient basis existed for a more definite finding.
3. Because evidence concerning the child’s formal diagnosis and likely reaction to separation was unavailable at the original hearing, the court conducted the proportionality balancing exercise afresh under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
4. The court balanced the likely effect of extradition on the child and the family against the factors favouring extradition. Those factors included the seriousness of the offences, the substantial sentences remaining to be served, the applicant’s breach of parole and suspended sentences, his status as a fugitive from justice, his clandestine life in the United Kingdom and his offending while there. The offences’ age and the sentence already served for robbery counted against extradition.
5. The new evidence showed that separation could cause serious distress, behavioural problems and developmental regression. However, the evidence also indicated that, with appropriate support, the child’s behaviour could stabilise over approximately 12 to 18 months. The family would retain the support of the child’s mother and grandparents, and social-services support should be available.
6. The high public interest in honouring extradition arrangements weighed heavily in the balance. The overall balance was not changed by the new evidence. The further challenges to the District Judge’s findings about the applicant’s role in the children’s lives and the grandparents’ health did not establish error.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 17 October 2017, the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed.
• Southwark Crown Court: District Judge Snow ordered extradition on 12 May 2016.