Tomasz Bogdanski v Elblag Regional Court (Poland)

In an extradition appeal under Article 8, the court may stand back and assess whether the overall outcome reached by the district judge was wrong. The assessment must balance the private and family-life consequences against the public interest in extradition.

Passage of time may weaken the public interest and strengthen the factors against extradition, but it does not do so automatically. Fugitivity, the seriousness of the offending, the sentence remaining to be served and the need to prevent the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven may preserve a strong public interest. The cumulative impact on partners and other relatives must be considered, although it will not necessarily outweigh that public interest.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Hamilton on 15 January 2021. Poland sought his extradition to serve the remaining 12 months and 28 days of a 16-month sentence imposed for supplying and possessing heroin. The sentence had originally been suspended, was activated after further offending, and was partly served before the appellant left prison on temporary leave and travelled to the United Kingdom.

The appeal relied on Article 8. The appellant argued that the district judge had failed properly to assess delay, the effects of extradition on his partner and mother, his rehabilitation and established private life in the United Kingdom, and the overall proportionality of extradition. A proposed Article 3 ground was stayed pending lead cases.

1. The appeal on Article 8 grounds was dismissed. The district judge’s decision was one which was open to him and was not wrong. Even on a fresh proportionality assessment, the same outcome was reached.

2. There was no basis for inferring culpable delay. The periods between the offending and sentence, between further offending and activation of the sentence, and between failure to surrender and issue of the EAW were consistent with a properly working criminal justice system. The appellant was a fugitive who had not notified the Polish authorities that he was leaving or where he had gone.

3. Passage of time was relevant in two ways. It could weaken the public interest in extradition and strengthen the factors weighing against extradition. Here, however, the public interest was not materially diminished. The seriousness of the drug offending, the sentence remaining to be served, the appellant’s fugitivity and the importance of preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven for fugitives remained powerful considerations.

4. The district judge properly assessed the partner’s mental-health difficulties, the absence of independent evidence of severe psychiatric harm, and the financial effect on the appellant’s elderly mother. The mother’s Article 8 rights did not need to be separately engaged for the loss of financial support to form part of the proportionality assessment.

5. The appellant’s rehabilitation, employment, settled relationship, roots in the United Kingdom, age at the time of the offending and the hardship to the appellant, his partner, mother and employer were important factors. They were decisively outweighed by the public interest in extradition. Costs were reserved. The Article 3 issue remained stayed pending the lead cases.

• District Judge — District Judge Hamilton ordered extradition on 15 January 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — The Article 8 appeal was dismissed. The proposed Article 3 ground was stayed pending determination of the identified lead cases.