Bakowski v District Court In Slupsk, Poland

On an appeal against extradition, the appellate court must not conduct the Article 8 balancing exercise afresh merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Intervention requires an error of law or approach, perversity, or an overall evaluation that was wrong because crucial factors should have been weighed significantly differently.

The public interest in extradition carries great weight. Delay may reduce that weight and increase the impact on private and family life. A child’s interests are a primary consideration, but extradition will generally remain proportionate unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe.

The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve the remainder of a sentence for burglary. The appeal was brought under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant relied particularly on the effect of his extradition on his young son, who had autism spectrum disorder and learning difficulties, and on his wife, who suffered from depression. The District Judge accepted that extradition would cause serious harm but found that the interference with family life was proportionate to the public interest in extradition. The central issue was whether that evaluative conclusion was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant could succeed only if the District Judge’s decision was wrong. The appellate court was not entitled to repeat the proportionality assessment merely because it might have attached different weight to aspects of the evidence.
2. Under Article 8, the court must balance the interference with the private and family lives of the requested person and family members against the public interest in extradition. That public interest carries great weight, depending on the nature and seriousness of the crime. Delay may reduce the weight of that interest and increase the impact on family life.
3. The consequences of extradition must generally be exceptionally severe before the Article 8 rights of the family outweigh the public interest. The impact on children is a primary consideration and of primary importance, but it may be outweighed by other factors. Particular care is required where the requested person is a child’s sole available carer, although that circumstance did not arise here.
4. The District Judge had undertaken the required balance-sheet exercise, considering the son’s autism spectrum disorder and learning difficulties, the likely deterioration in his behaviour and academic performance, the continuing educational support, the effect on the appellant’s wife, the family’s circumstances, the offence, the unpaid compensation and the appellant’s failure to comply with the suspended sentence.
5. The criticisms advanced on appeal were substantially challenges to the weight assigned to the evidence. The District Judge had not overlooked the relevant diagnosis, difficulties or expert material. His assessment fairly recorded both the adverse consequences and the mitigating features. The conclusion that the consequences were serious but not exceptionally severe was open to him and was not shown to be wrong. Extradition was therefore proportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed. Permission to appeal had been granted by Julian Knowles J in May 2020. Permission to advance a new Article 6 challenge was refused.