Kamil Siatkowski v Regional Court in Kielce (Poland)

In an extradition case engaging Article 8, the public interest will usually outweigh private and family life interests unless the consequences of extradition are exceptionally severe. This is not an exceptionality test. The court must conduct a fact-sensitive balance, taking account of delay and the private and family life built up during that period. On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the question is whether there is a reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success, including whether standing back from the decision produces an outcome that is wrong.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a 10-month sentence for fraud. A District Judge ordered extradition after an oral hearing. Murray J stayed permission grounds concerning the Wozniak/Chlabicz issues pending linked proceedings but refused permission on the Article 8 ground. The appellant renewed that application, alleging errors concerning exceptionality, delay, seriousness, private and family life, and the effect on third parties. The central issue was whether an Article 8 appeal was reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success.

1. Permission threshold. The renewed application was assessed by asking whether there was a reasonably arguable Article 8 ground with a realistic prospect of success. That included the question whether, on standing back and considering the outcome, a substantive appeal could find the extradition decision wrong.
2. No exceptionality test. The District Judge had not applied an erroneous exceptionality test. The statement that the public interest in extradition will usually outweigh Article 8 rights unless the consequences are exceptionally severe was a practical description of the Article 8 balance, consistent with HH [2012] UKSC 25. The District Judge’s use of “usually” did not turn the approach into a rigid test.
3. Delay and passage of time. The District Judge had correctly recognised that delay may diminish the weight of the public interest and increase the impact on private and family life. The appellant’s settled life, employment, relationships and subsequent developments were practical examples of the way in which passage of time informs the evaluative balance. The District Judge was entitled to give little weight to the unexplained delay in view of the appellant’s fugitive status.
4. Other alleged errors. Describing the fraud as having an employment context did not mischaracterise the offending. The District Judge had properly assessed seriousness and had considered the relevant private, family and third-party effects. The strong public interest included respect for Poland’s extradition request and the appellant’s deliberate evasion of the criminal process. The partner’s condition was stable, and the evidence did not establish that extradition would necessarily cause the asserted employment consequences.
5. Disposition. There was no reasonably arguable Article 8 error of law or approach, and no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would find extradition incompatible with Article 8 rights. Permission to appeal on that ground was refused.

• District Judge. Ordered extradition to Poland after an oral hearing on 3 August 2020.
• High Court. Murray J stayed permission grounds concerning the Wozniak/Chlabicz issues and refused permission on the Article 8 ground. On renewal, Fordham J refused permission on that ground.