DARIUSZ JAN SZCZYGIEL v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

In an extradition case involving an Article 8 ECHR challenge, proportionality must be assessed by weighing all relevant features together. A lengthy period of qualifying remand and a short period remaining to serve cannot, without more, make extradition disproportionate. The assessment must include the seriousness of the offending, the public interest in preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven, the individual and family impact of extradition, and other relevant circumstances. The position concerning qualifying remand is assessed as at the date of the current decision, rather than by projecting forward to a future substantive appeal.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Rimmer on 23 November 2020. Sir Ross Cranston refused permission on the papers on the Article 8 ECHR ground. Permission was renewed before the Administrative Court.

The appellant relied on his family life with his partner and young child, his role as a primary co-carer, ill health, his period of qualifying remand, and the relatively short period of imprisonment remaining to serve. A separate ground concerning section 2 was no longer pursued. The central issue was whether it was reasonably arguable that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

1. Permission refused. The Article 8 ground was not reasonably arguable. Permission was also formally refused on the abandoned Wozniak section 2 ground.
2. The correct temporal approach to qualifying remand was to consider the position as at the date of the renewed application, rather than projecting forward to a future substantive appeal hearing. The earlier decision in Molik [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin) was applied on this point.
3. Qualifying remand could not render extradition disproportionate as a standalone feature. Nor did it do so when considered with the other features relied upon, including the approximately four months remaining to serve, the appellant’s family circumstances, his health, and his previously blameless life in the United Kingdom.
4. The proportionality assessment required the relevant circumstances to be considered cumulatively. Strong public interest factors supported extradition, including the safe-haven rationale and the appellant’s status as a fugitive who had failed to attend prison in Poland and had returned to the United Kingdom with knowledge of the sentence he faced.
5. The index offending was not properly characterised as a minor low-value theft. The appellant had threatened two shop employees with a knife. That materially strengthened the public interest in extradition. The impact on the appellant, his partner and their young child did not arguably outweigh those considerations.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Sir Ross Cranston refused permission to appeal on the papers on the Article 8 ECHR ground. On renewal, Mr Justice Fordham refused permission on that ground and formally refused permission on the abandoned section 2 ground.
2. Magistrates’ court: District Judge Rimmer ordered extradition on 23 November 2020.