Pawel Owczarski v Polish Judicial Authority

Permission to appeal on an Article 8 ECHR ground requires a realistic prospect that the first-instance evaluative outcome was wrong. In extradition cases, the court must balance the public interest in extradition against the private and family life consequences for all affected persons. Relevant factors include the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the sentence, delay and responsibility for it, the development of private or family life with knowledge of the extradition risk, health concerns, and the impact on family members. Strong personal and family consequences do not necessarily outweigh the public interest where the offending is substantial and the delay is principally attributable to the appellant.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Jabbitt for reasons given on 4 December 2020. Permission had been refused on certain grounds, including physical health under section 25, and other grounds were stayed pending test cases. The remaining issue was whether there was a reasonably arguable Article 8 ECHR challenge based on the appellant’s private and family life in the United Kingdom, his relationship with his partner and her daughters, his hand injury and treatment needs, delay, and uncertainty concerning return after Brexit.

1. Permission refused. There was no realistic prospect that the court at a substantive hearing would conclude that the judge’s evaluative outcome was wrong or that extradition would breach the appellant’s, his partner’s or either daughter’s Article 8 rights.
2. The offences were not particularly serious in isolation, but they were multiple offences involving criminal damage and supplying marijuana. The appellant also had a previous burglary conviction and was required to serve three years and six months’ custody. These matters created strong public-interest considerations in favour of extradition.
3. The appellant’s serious hand injury and the advantages of continuing treatment in the United Kingdom were relevant to the Article 8 balance. However, the health issue had to be considered against the abandoned section 25 ground and the undisturbed presumption that suitable healthcare would be available in Poland.
4. Delay was relevant both to the public interest and to the strength of the private and family life claims. The judge was entitled to find that the appellant had deliberately left Poland knowing that he faced a substantial prison sentence and that the delay was principally his fault. The private and family life established in the United Kingdom had developed against that background and with that knowledge.
5. The relationship with the partner was relatively recent, although the consequences of extradition for all four affected individuals would be significant. Taken together, the factors against extradition were decisively outweighed by the factors in favour of it. Permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground was therefore refused.

The judgment records that extradition was ordered by District Judge Jabbitt for reasons given on 4 December 2020. Permission to appeal was refused on some grounds and the remaining Article 8 ground was considered by the High Court.