Traczyk v Polish Judicial Authority

On an extradition appeal, the High Court may interfere where the district judge’s decision is plainly wrong because relevant factors were omitted, material facts were misstated, or the overall balance was disproportionate. The assessment must give proper weight to the age and relatively minor nature of the offending, delay in pursuing extradition, the requested person’s conduct and circumstances in the United Kingdom, and the dependency of close family members. These matters must be balanced against the public interest in honouring extradition obligations, preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven, and ensuring that lawful sentences are served. A decision which loses sight of balance and proportion may be wrong even where the district judge recognised that the case was finely balanced.

The appellant appealed against the decision of District Judge Jabbitt at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, dated 4 January 2018, ordering his extradition to Poland. The extradition concerned a 2006 internet fraud involving approximately £75 and a mobile telephone. The appellant had moved lawfully to the United Kingdom with his partner and child shortly after being sentenced in Poland. He had lived openly in the United Kingdom for about ten years, while his partner and son were materially dependent upon him. The central issues were whether the district judge had properly assessed the relevant factors and whether the resulting balance in favour of extradition was sustainable.

1. Appeal allowed. The High Court could interfere only if the district judge’s decision was wrong. Having regard to the district judge’s reasons and the evidence, the decision was plainly wrong.
2. The district judge failed properly to account for several matters adverse to extradition. These included the offence having been committed in April 2006, the substantial delay between activation of the suspended sentence in November 2011 and issue of the European Arrest Warrant in September 2017, and the relatively minor nature of the particular offending, involving approximately £75. Describing the offence merely as not being of the most serious risked overstating its gravity.
3. The district judge also made a material error of fact by stating that the appellant’s partner was able to work and that the appellant was not the primary carer for his son. The evidence showed that the partner was on long-term sick leave, had serious medical problems and was vulnerable and dependent on the appellant.
4. Those errors affected the overall balance. The appellant had moved lawfully to the United Kingdom, lived openly and lawfully there for about ten years, supported his partner and son, and had repaid the victim. Although there were strong public interests in honouring treaty obligations, avoiding the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven and ensuring that offenders served lawful sentences, those interests had to be assessed proportionately.
5. In the circumstances, extradition for the historic and relatively minor fraud was unjustifiable. The district judge had lost sight of balance and proportion. The extradition order was therefore set aside by allowing the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the extradition decision and order of District Judge Jabbitt dated 4 January 2018.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.