Szwarc v Regional Court In Gliwice (Poland)

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8 ECHR, the public interest in giving effect to extradition requests is so strong that interference with private and family life must have exceptionally serious consequences to prevent extradition. The appellate court reviews the lower court’s decision rather than making its own value judgment. Intervention is justified where the lower court misapplies legal principles, makes an unreasonable material finding, fails to consider a relevant fact or factor, or reaches an irrational conclusion. A failure to consider a previous extradition, imprisonment and release by the requesting state may constitute a material error requiring the appeal to be allowed.

A District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants relating to drug offences committed in 2004 and 2005. The appellant relied on Article 8 ECHR, citing substantial delay, the fact that he had already served two years of a four-year sentence, his previous extradition and release, and his established family life in the United Kingdom.

Permission to appeal was granted on the grounds that the District Judge might not have sufficiently considered the previous extradition and the separate periods of delay relating to the two warrants. The central issue was whether the District Judge’s decision was legally or rationally sustainable on appellate review.

1. The appeal was allowed. The District Judge’s failure to take into account the appellant’s previous extradition, imprisonment and release by the Polish authorities was determinative.

2. In an Article 8 ECHR extradition case, the public interest in meeting extradition requests is exceptionally strong. The consequences of interference with private and family life must therefore be exceptionally serious before extradition can be barred: Norris v Government of United States of America [2010] UKSC 9.

3. The appellate court’s function is supervisory. It reviews the decision below and does not substitute its own assessment. Intervention is justified if the lower court misapplied established legal principles, made a material finding that no reasonable judge could have made, failed to take account of a relevant fact or factor, or reached an irrational or perverse conclusion: Belbin v Regional Court of Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin). The approach was reinforced by In the matter of B (a child) (FC) [2013] UKSC 33 and Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin).

4. The unusually long delay raised concern, but it was unnecessary to decide whether delay alone required a different outcome. The previous extradition, imprisonment and release were clearly relevant to the propriety of the current requests. Omitting that factor rendered the decision wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal allowed against the extradition order.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge McPhee ordered extradition to Poland on two European Arrest Warrants on 10 July 2017.