Aleksandra Siuda v Sad Okregowy, Kielce, Poland

In an extradition appeal, proportionality under Article 8 requires a careful examination of the interference with private and family life, including the practical and emotional impact on children. The court must balance those factors against the public interest in extradition. Appellate review is supervisory: disagreement with the lower court’s weighting is insufficient without an error of principle, an unsupported material finding, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an irrational conclusion.

For double criminality, the court considers the entirety of the conduct described in the extradition request. It must not divide the conduct between separate charges and then disregard conduct which could have been included in another charge.

The appellant appealed against an order for extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a custodial sentence imposed for six offences committed in 2012 and 2013, when she was aged 17 and 18. She argued that one charge did not constitute an extradition offence and that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her and her family’s Article 8 rights, particularly those of her six-year-old son.

The District Judge found that all the offences were extradition offences and that extradition was compatible with Article 8. Further evidence was provided on appeal concerning the effect of separation on the child. The central issues were whether the conduct underlying one charge satisfied the statutory double-criminality test and whether the District Judge had erred in the Article 8 proportionality assessment.

1. Offence 4 was an extradition offence. Under Extradition Act 2003, sections 10(2) and 65(3)(b), the court had to consider whether the conduct specified in the European Arrest Warrant would constitute an offence under English law. Following Norris v Government of the United States of America and others [2008] UKHL 16, the relevant conduct was the entirety of the conduct described in the request. Verbal abuse and spitting at a police officer constituted common assault. It was impermissible to split the conduct between charges and disregard the fact that some of it might have been included in another offence.
2. The Article 8 challenge failed. The District Judge had correctly identified the relevant factors, including the seriousness and age of the offending, the appellant’s age when it occurred, her fugitive status, the public interest in extradition, and the likely emotional and financial consequences for her partner and child.
3. Following Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, appellate review was limited. The court would intervene only for a misapplication of legal principles, an unreasonable material finding, failure to consider a relevant factor, consideration of an irrelevant factor, or an irrational or perverse overall conclusion.
4. The District Judge had not treated the child’s interests as automatically outweighed by the public interest. She had examined the practical consequences of separation and was entitled to conclude that, despite powerful factors against extradition, the interference was proportionate. The further evidence did not materially alter that assessment. Domestic sentencing policy for children and young people was not directly relevant to the extradition Article 8 balancing exercise.
5. The appeal was dismissed. The application to amend the grounds of appeal to raise an Article 6 challenge concerning the independence and impartiality of the Polish courts was stayed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition decision was dismissed. The application to add an Article 6 ground was stayed.
2. District Judge Griffiths: Found that all offences in the European Arrest Warrant were extradition offences and that extradition was compatible with Article 8.