Jankowski v Regional Court of Torun, Poland

On an extradition appeal relying on fresh evidence, the court asks whether the extradition outcome is wrong in light of all the evidence, while respecting the lower court’s factual findings unless inconsistent with the new evidence.

Article 8 requires a specific balancing exercise. Strong public interests support extradition, including mutual confidence in foreign judicial authorities, the seriousness of the offending, enforcement of the sentence and prevention of the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven for fugitives. Private and family life interests must be sufficiently powerful to outweigh those considerations. A recent relationship, limited cohabitation, upset and ordinary hardship will not necessarily amount to the very significant impact required to make extradition disproportionate.

This was an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s decision ordering the appellant’s extradition to Poland. The extradition request concerned a conviction European Arrest Warrant seeking his return to serve the remaining 10 months and 13 days of a 12-month sentence for drug possession.

Permission was granted to rely on fresh evidence, including statements from the appellant and his partner. The central issue was whether, considering that evidence together with the existing material, extradition would be incompatible with the appellant’s private and family life rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to show that the conclusion that extradition was compatible with article 8 was the wrong outcome. The court respected the district judge’s unchallenged factual findings and considered the fresh evidence.
2. Under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate question focused on the outcome in light of all the evidence. The court did not substitute its own assessment of matters unaffected by the fresh evidence.
3. The article 8 exercise in an extradition case is not a choice between the public interest in Poland and the United Kingdom being better served by extradition or by allowing the individual to remain. It requires a specific balancing of public interests and private rights, with appropriate respect for decisions made by foreign public authorities within the international extradition framework.
4. Weighty factors supported extradition: the public interest in extradition, mutual confidence and respect for the Polish judicial authorities and sentencing regime, the seriousness of the offending, the sentence remaining to be served, the appellant’s offending history, his fugitive status and the public interest in preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven.
5. The appellant’s positive rehabilitation, employment and private and family life did not outweigh those factors. His relationship was recent and limited; he had no direct dependants and was not a primary carer. The evidence established upset and some hardship, but not a very significant impact on the children or their welfare. The balance therefore came clearly in favour of extradition.
6. The court considered the approach in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski, [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), and concluded that substantially the same reasoning applied. The extradition order stood.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the district judge’s extradition decision dismissed. Permission to appeal and to rely on fresh evidence had been granted by Holman J.