ROBERT KRZYSZTOF MEDRZECKI v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

In an extradition appeal, permission should be refused where the proposed Article 8 challenge has no realistic prospect of establishing that extradition would be disproportionate. The court must weigh the strong public interest in extradition against private and family life factors. Time served and the period remaining are legitimate considerations, but must be assessed with the seriousness of the offending, the requested person’s conduct, and the circumstances in which private and family life were established. Updated evidence is relevant only if it could realistically affect the balance.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of District Judge Jabbitt in extradition proceedings. The appellant was wanted by Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning serious violent offending, with approximately seven months of his sentence remaining. He relied on Article 8 ECHR, the passage of time, rehabilitation, his established life in the United Kingdom, and his partner’s serious health and mobility problems.

The central issue was whether, taking updated evidence into account, there was a reasonably arguable case that extradition would disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of the appellant or his partner.

1. Outcome. Permission to appeal and permission to adduce fresh evidence were refused. The Article 3 ECHR and Wozniak grounds had been abandoned, and the stays previously granted were discharged.
2. The court considered the updated evidence on the most favourable basis, including by supposing that the Article 8 balance could be revisited afresh. There was nevertheless no realistic prospect of establishing incompatibility. The original judge had conducted the appropriate balance sheet exercise and had considered delay, the appellant’s life and employment in the United Kingdom, his relationship, rehabilitation, the sentence largely served, and his partner’s health and reliance on him.
3. Time served and time remaining are legitimate factors in the Article 8 balance, but do not operate in isolation. The appellant had left Poland while on special leave, knowing that he was required to return to prison, later failed to attend for judgment, and breached bail. Those circumstances created very strong public-interest factors supporting extradition and formed the context in which his private and family life had developed.
4. The approach to qualifying remand discussed in Molik [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin) was applied. It was inappropriate to project forward to a substantive hearing where permission would provide the foundation for reliance on continuing qualifying remand, particularly after the Article 3 and Wozniak grounds ceased to provide an independent durable basis for remaining in the United Kingdom.
5. Balodis-Klocko v Latvia [2014] EWHC 2661 (Admin) illustrated that time left to serve can be a legitimate factor even in a serious case. That authority involved unusual and particularly compelling circumstances, including serious risks arising from interruption of medical treatment. The present case lacked comparable features.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal against the extradition judge’s decision was refused. Permission to rely on fresh evidence was also refused.