Manecki v District Court in Kielce, Poland

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, proportionality is assessed by balancing the seriousness and likely impact of extradition against the public interest in enforcing the extradition request. Unexplained delay may weigh against extradition, particularly where the requesting state bears responsibility for it. The requested person’s fugitive status and responsibility for the delay are also relevant. The appellate court must respect the decision-maker’s assessment of weight. It may intervene only where the decision is wrong or falls outside the range reasonably open to the decision-maker.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Rose on 6 April 2016 requiring his extradition to Poland to serve the outstanding balance of a sentence imposed for theft. His sole ground was that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s Article 8 rights.

The appeal concerned substantial unexplained delays between activation of the sentence, issue of the domestic warrant, issue of the European Arrest Warrant and its transmission to the United Kingdom. The appellant also relied on his family circumstances and subsequent return to living with his partner and children in Blackpool.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court applied the principles governing Article 8 proportionality in extradition cases, derived from Norris v Government of the United States of America (No.2) [2010] UKSC 9, HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 and Celinski and others v Polish Judicial Authorities [2015] EWHC 1274.
2. The delays were very substantial and unexplained. They militated against extradition, and the requesting state appeared to bear significant responsibility for the overall delay. However, the appellant was properly regarded as a fugitive because he had failed to comply with conditions of his suspended sentence and had not maintained contact with his probation officer or notified the Polish authorities of his address.
3. The impact of extradition on the appellant and his family did not reach the degree of severity required before extradition could be characterised as a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The case was finely balanced, but the District Judge was entitled to attach the weight she did to the competing factors.
4. The appellate court could not substitute its own assessment merely because another view was possible. The District Judge’s evaluation and conclusion were well within the range open to a reasonable decision-maker and could not be categorised as wrong.
5. The appellant’s subsequent return to live and work in Blackpool, and his greater ability to share the everyday care of the children, strengthened the case against extradition but did not make the District Judge’s decision wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge Rose: On 6 April 2016, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland to serve the outstanding balance of his sentence.