Maczkowski v Circuit Court In Gdansk Poland

When considering an Article 8 challenge to extradition, the court may assess the position by projecting forward to the likely date of a substantive appeal where that is realistic. Time already served on remand is relevant, particularly where only a very short period of imprisonment remains. It must nevertheless be weighed against the strong public interest in extradition, the seriousness of the offences and the individual circumstances. Extradition remains compatible with Article 8 where the remaining custodial period is not sufficiently short to outweigh those considerations and the first-instance balancing exercise was sound.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a custodial sentence imposed following convictions for theft and false testimony. A district judge ordered extradition on 13 July 2020. Steyn J refused permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground, which was renewed before the Administrative Court.

The appellant relied principally on time served on remand, projected to the likely date of a substantive appeal, together with his United Kingdom residence and family ties. The central issue was whether those matters made it reasonably arguable that extradition would be incompatible with Article 8.

1. Permission refused. The appellant’s Article 8 challenge was not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would succeed.
2. The court accepted that it was appropriate to assess the Article 8 position by projecting forward to February 2021, a realistic timeframe for any substantive appeal. That approach was supported by the reasoning in Molik [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin) at paragraph 30(i) and (ii).
3. Time served on remand was a relevant consideration, particularly where the period remaining to serve was very short. The court referred to Malar as an example in which extradition remained compatible with Article 8 despite the appellant having served most of a short sentence.
4. The remand period had to be weighed against the strong public interest in extradition, the seriousness of the offences, the appellant’s previous convictions and his status as a fugitive. His United Kingdom and family ties, the possibility of release in Poland and the prospect of tagged supervision did not outweigh those considerations.
5. The district judge had conducted an impeccable Article 8 balancing exercise and given clear and cogent reasons. The court therefore refused permission to appeal.

• District judge: DJ Branston ordered the appellant’s extradition on 13 July 2020.
• High Court: Steyn J refused permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground on 20 September 2020. The Article 8 ground was renewed before Fordham J, who refused permission to appeal.