Morawski v Regional Court, Elblag (Poland)

On an appeal under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, fresh evidence may justify a different Article 8 assessment from that made at the extradition hearing where it was unavailable earlier and would have required discharge. The court must conduct the Article 8 balance afresh, weighing the serious public interest in extradition against the individual and family circumstances now established. The gravity of the offence remains important, but may be outweighed on exceptional facts by a supportive and interdependent relationship, difficult life histories, time already spent in custody, previous compliance with probation, and restrictive bail conditions.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against an extradition order made by District Judge Goldspring on 17 December 2018. The appeal concerned fresh evidence about the appellant’s childhood and upbringing, his partner’s circumstances, the development and interdependence of their relationship, and the consequences of his detention and bail conditions.

The underlying offences involved a serious and brutal robbery in Poland. The central question was whether the fresh evidence brought the case within section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and required the Article 8 balance to be decided differently, with the result that the appellant had to be discharged.

1. The appeal was allowed on the basis of fresh evidence, without criticism of District Judge Goldspring’s judgment or reasoning. The court admitted the written and oral evidence because it was unavailable at the extradition hearing.

2. The fresh evidence brought the case within section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. The evidence would have caused the district judge to decide the Article 8 question differently, and that different conclusion would have required the appellant’s discharge.

3. The court applied the Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Ors balance, weighing the public interest in extradition against the appellant’s Article 8 rights. The seriousness and brutality of the offences, and the significant sentence that would have been imposed, remained weighty considerations.

4. On the other side of the balance, the court considered the appellant’s four and a half years of good behaviour while subject to probation, more than six months spent in custody in Poland and England, and more than a year under restrictive bail conditions. It also considered the exceptionally difficult life histories of the appellant and his partner and their highly interdependent relationship.

5. On the exceptional facts, the appellant’s Article 8 rights outweighed the normal weighty public interest in extradition. The extradition order was quashed and the appellant was ordered to be discharged. No special order was made concerning his travel costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — Appeal allowed against the extradition order; the appellant was discharged and the order for extradition was quashed.
• District Judge Goldspring — Extradition ordered on 17 December 2018.