Krzysztof Bizon v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an extradition case, an Article 8 challenge must show a realistic prospect that the appellate court would interfere with the lower court’s proportionality assessment. The seriousness of the offence and the sentence may create a strong public interest in extradition, even where the requested person is not a fugitive and has substantial family and private-life connections in the United Kingdom. The appellate court may assume the most favourable factual evaluation and still refuse permission where the extradition outcome remains decisively proportionate.

The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in Poland for a historical rape offence. Extradition was ordered by District Judge Zani on 10 November 2020 after an oral hearing. Johnson J refused permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground. The appellant renewed that application, arguing that his long residence, marriage, two children, employment, family hardship, non-fugitivity, and the historical nature of the offence made extradition disproportionate.

The central issue was whether the Article 8 ground was reasonably arguable, including whether a substantive appellate court could properly reassess the overall proportionality balance.

1. Renewed application refused. The Article 8 ground was not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal court would interfere with the District Judge’s conclusion.
2. The court considered the most favourable approach to the appellate function, including a fresh evaluation of the Article 8 balance. Even on that basis, the offence was very serious, and the four-year sentence reflected that seriousness. Those matters generated strong public-interest considerations in favour of extradition.
3. The appellant’s non-fugitivity did not remove the public interest in extradition. The District Judge’s reference to the United Kingdom not being a safe haven was properly understood as an observation concerning international extradition obligations and accountability, rather than as the enhanced safe-haven consideration applicable to fugitives.
4. The appellant’s settled residence, employment, fixed accommodation, family life, financial and emotional support for his wife and children, and the hardship caused by extradition were all relevant. They did not outweigh the public interest. The District Judge had considered the relevant evidence, including character references, the wife’s circumstances, possible state benefits, the children’s Polish nationality and language, and assistance from extended family.
5. The discrete challenge to credibility disclosed no material error. The limited adverse finding did not affect the finding of non-fugitivity or the Article 8 balancing exercise.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Krzysztof Bizon v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland, [2021] EWHC 917 (Admin) — renewed permission application on the Article 8 ground refused.
• District Judge: extradition ordered on 10 November 2020.
• High Court: Johnson J refused permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground on 26 February 2021.