Wysocki v Circuit Court In Wroclaw, Poland

At a permission stage, an Article 8 extradition appeal requires a reasonably arguable ground and a realistic prospect that the substantive appeal would succeed. The court may examine the case on the most favourable up-to-date factual basis advanced by the appellant.

In assessing proportionality, the domestic court must give appropriate respect to the seriousness attributed by the requesting state’s prosecuting and sentencing authorities. Time spent on remand is relevant, but its significance depends on the sentence remaining to be served and the circumstances of the case. Passage of time carries less weight where the appellant knowingly left the requesting state while subject to sentence conditions and placed himself beyond reach.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by a District Judge on 14 February 2020. Permission had been refused on the papers by Goose J on 7 July 2020.

The proposed appeal relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, fresh evidence, alleged errors in the District Judge’s assessment, the appellant’s rehabilitation and family relationship in the United Kingdom, remand time, and alleged unfairness in the operation of Polish suspended sentences. A further ground raised the issue identified in Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin). The central questions were whether the Article 8 ground was reasonably arguable and whether the fresh evidence could be determinative.

1. Permission and the Wozniak point. Permission was granted to amend the grounds to raise the issue identified in Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin), with an extension of time. That ground, and the appellant’s extradition, were stayed pending the resolution of that issue. The respondent was given liberty to apply concerning reliance on the new ground.
2. Article 8 threshold. The court considered the case on the most favourable basis advanced for the appellant, including the fresh evidence and an up-to-date assessment. The question was whether there was a realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would establish that extradition was incompatible with Article 8.
3. Proportionality. The domestic court must give appropriate respect to the seriousness assessed by the Polish prosecuting and sentencing authorities. The offences were multiple, involved Class A drugs and supply, and had resulted in activated custodial sentences. They could not properly be treated as trivial or minor.
4. Remand and lapse of time. Remand is capable of being relevant to the Article 8 balance. Its weight depends on the relationship between the remand served and the sentence remaining to be served. Here, approximately 12 months’ remand was materially less than the approximately 25 months remaining under the Polish sentences. The age of the offending did not provide a cogent argument because the appellant had left Poland knowing of relevant conditions and had placed himself beyond reach. The court considered that he should be regarded as a fugitive for this purpose.
5. Other factors and disposition. Rehabilitation, the appellant’s relationship and the effect of extradition on family life did not outweigh the public interest. The District Judge had mischaracterised the appellant’s United Kingdom offending, but that error did not undermine the ultimate proportionality conclusion. The Article 8 ground and fresh evidence application were dismissed because neither had a realistic prospect of determining the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The District Judge ordered extradition on 14 February 2020. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Goose J on 7 July 2020. The High Court dismissed the Article 8 ground and fresh evidence application, while staying the Wozniak ground and extradition.