Burzynski v District Court of Poznan (Poland)

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8 family rights, the court must conduct a careful proportionality assessment. The welfare of an affected child is a primary consideration, and the practical and emotional consequences of removing a parent must be assessed on the evidence. It is an error to dismiss an unchallenged account of serious impact as unsupported without giving cogent reasons for rejecting it. Relevant considerations may include the seriousness of the offence, delay in pursuing extradition, the public interest in fulfilling extradition obligations, the child’s circumstances and any subsequent remediation of the underlying liability.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 2 June 2016 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve a 12-month sentence for a comparatively minor fraud committed in 2002. The sentence had initially been suspended but was activated after the appellant failed to pay compensation. He had lived in the United Kingdom since 2004 and had established a family life there.

The appeal concerned whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, his partner and their disabled 11-year-old son. The central issue was whether the District Judge had properly assessed the child’s welfare and the evidence concerning the effect of extradition.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge’s finding that the likely effect of extradition on the child was an unsupported assertion was erroneous. The mother’s evidence was unchallenged and, on its face, demonstrated that the consequences would be extremely serious.
2. The District Judge also substantially understated the child’s circumstances by describing the likely consequence merely as the child missing his father. The appellant was an integral part of the support network required for the child’s welfare. The child’s rights had to be respected just as much as those of his parents.
3. The Court conducted the proportionality balancing exercise for itself. Greater weight was given to the child’s significant medical and developmental needs and to the effect of the appellant’s removal on the family unit. The unexplained delays in pursuing the appellant were also significant in the context of a comparatively minor conviction, although they would not alone have determined the outcome.
4. The public interest in honouring extradition obligations remained substantial. However, the compensation whose non-payment had triggered activation of the suspended sentence had since been paid. In the circumstances, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the family life and welfare of the child.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal against District Judge Coleman’s order of 2 June 2016 requiring extradition to Poland.