Kozlowski v Regional Court in Piotrkow Trybunalski

An extradition appeal may succeed where the appellant’s time in custody means that little or no sentence remains to be served in the requesting state. The public interest in maintaining extradition arrangements must be assessed at the time of the appeal. The passage of time may materially reduce that interest, particularly where the appellant has private life in the United Kingdom. The court may allow the appeal on that later-arising basis even though the original grounds of appeal fail.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland in his absence and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. A European arrest warrant was issued, and he was arrested and detained in the United Kingdom.

The Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the Polish offence was not an extradition offence and that extradition would breach his rights under article 8. Permission was granted on both grounds, but the High Court rejected them. By the time of the appeal, however, the appellant had served almost the whole sentence in United Kingdom custody. The central issue was whether that change in circumstances materially altered the public interest in extradition.

1. The appeal succeeded, although not on either ground for which permission had been granted. The court ordered the appellant’s discharge from the arrest warrant.

2. The Polish offence was plainly equivalent to child cruelty under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The particulars of the offence, including the period of offending and the nature of the abuse, sufficiently supported the conclusion that the appellant had responsibility for the child. His own evidence provided additional support.

3. The district judge was entitled to reject or doubt significant parts of the appellant’s evidence concerning his partner’s ill-health. Even if the evidence later available showed an error in one respect, the district judge’s overall article 8 conclusion remained sound because the appellant’s absence did not itself affect his partner’s position.

4. The relevant circumstances had nevertheless changed materially. The appellant had been in custody since 9 June 2017 and had served just short of five and a half months of a six-month sentence. A further 14-day period before removal would mean that, in practical terms, he would have served the whole sentence in the United Kingdom.

5. In those circumstances, and having regard to the appellant’s private life in the United Kingdom, the public interest in extradition had substantially less weight than it had when the district judge considered the case. The situation was equivalent to that in Dudkiewicz v Regional Court in Warsaw (Poland) [2017] EWHC 2171 (Admin), where allowing the appeal and discharging the arrest warrant was held to be appropriate.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Snow ordered extradition on 13 July 2017, finding that the offence was an extradition offence and that extradition was compatible with article 8.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed because the passage of time had substantially reduced the public interest in extradition after the appellant had effectively served his sentence in United Kingdom custody.