Ostrowski v Circuit Court Warszawa-Praga In Warszawa, Poland (Rev 1)

In extradition proceedings, the United Kingdom court’s proportionality assessment is distinct from the requesting judicial authority’s decision whether to maintain and pursue a European Arrest Warrant. The functions may overlap, but there is no general rule that the United Kingdom court must defer its consideration or always go second. The court may assess the material before it on the premise that the warrant remains in force. Nevertheless, where the requesting authority has expressly arranged to reconsider proportionality before a specified date, the United Kingdom court may suspend the effect of its order so that removal does not occur before that reconsideration.

The appellant sought an adjournment and permission to appeal against a district judge’s extradition decision. The district judge had rejected arguments based on article 8 and oppression under section 25, despite evidence concerning the appellant’s family circumstances and health.

By the hearing, the requesting Polish court was due to reconsider, on 26 June 2020, whether to maintain the European Arrest Warrant in light of further medical evidence and the proportionality of pursuing it. The issues were whether the United Kingdom court should adjourn to allow that reconsideration, whether there was a reasonably arguable ground of appeal, and whether any order should be suspended pending the Polish court’s decision.

1. Adjournment refused. The appellant was entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present his case, but there was no unfairness or injustice in the court deciding the application on the material before it. The court was required to perform its own proportionality and oppression analysis.
2. The United Kingdom courts’ proportionality function is distinct from the requesting authority’s continuing function of deciding whether to pursue the warrant. There may be overlap, and appropriate respect is given to the requesting state’s sentencing decisions and policies, but the two questions are not identical. BS [2017] EWHC 571 (Admin) recognised the continuing proportionality function of the requesting judicial authority.
3. There is no general principle, rule or presumption that the United Kingdom court must always go second or adjourn while the requesting state considers proportionality. The court could therefore consider whether there was a reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the premise that the warrant was being maintained.
4. Permission to appeal refused. The district judge’s findings and analysis were reasonably open to her. Having considered the fresh medical evidence and the circumstances as at the hearing, there was no realistic prospect that extradition would be unlawful under article 8 or oppressive.
5. The court nevertheless accepted that removal should not occur before the Polish court’s announced reconsideration on 26 June 2020. The order was suspended to take effect after that date.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal from the district judge’s extradition decision was refused. The adjournment application was also refused, but the order was suspended until after the requesting court’s reconsideration on 26 June 2020.