JACEK PIEKARSKI v THE DISTRICT COURT IN LUBLIN, POLAND

In an extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, material factual errors in the first-instance proportionality assessment require the appellate court to conduct the Article 8 assessment afresh where the statutory conditions for doing so are met. Article 8 contains no exceptionality test. The question is whether interference with private or family life is proportionate to the public interest in extradition. That public interest remains weighty, though its weight depends on the seriousness of the offence and may be affected by delay. Where extradition materially worsens the person’s immigration position, the resulting risk of exclusion may be included in the balancing exercise. The fact that only a short period of a longer sentence remains does not necessarily make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court’s order of 26 February 2021 requiring his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for criminal damage. The section 2 challenge was stayed pending Wozniak v Circuit Court in Gniezno, Poland [2021] EWHC 2557 (Admin) and later fell away. Permission was granted on the Article 8 ground.

The appellant argued that the district judge had relied on findings apparently copied from another case and that, taking account of delay, the sentence already served and the likely effect of Brexit on his ability to return to the United Kingdom, extradition would be disproportionate. The central issue was whether the appeal should be allowed under section 27(4) on the evidence available at the appellate hearing.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Senior District Judge’s judgment contained material factual and reasoning errors, including findings apparently relating to another case. The respondent accepted that the errors were material. The appellate court therefore conducted the Article 8 assessment on the evidence then available, proceeding on the agreed assumption that section 27(4) permitted that approach.

2. Extradition interfered with the appellant’s private life, pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime and raised the proportionality question identified in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. The court applied the general extradition principles stated in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] AC 338, as informed by Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] AC 487 and Celinski v Polish Judicial Authority [2016] 1 WLR 551. There is no requirement that the consequences be exceptional. The question is whether the interference is outweighed by the public interest in extradition.

3. The public interest includes bringing accused persons to trial, requiring convicted persons to serve sentences, honouring extradition obligations and preventing safe havens. It carries great weight, but varies with the seriousness of the offending. Delay may reduce that weight and increase the impact on Article 8 rights. In this case, the offence was not among the most serious, and the post-certification delay was accepted as culpable, but the public interest remained powerful.

4. The court considered the differing approaches in Antochi v Richtern am Amstegericht of the Amstgericht Munchen (Munich), Germany [2020] EWHC 3092 (Admin), Rybak v District Court in Lublin (Poland) [2021] EWHC 712 (Admin), Pink v Regional Court in Elblag (Poland) [2021] EWHC 1238 (Admin) and Gorak v Regional Court in Poznan [2022] EWHC 671 (Admin). It did not resolve the broader disagreement. On the agreed facts, extradition would materially worsen the appellant’s immigration position, so the likely exclusion from the United Kingdom was included in the balancing exercise.

5. The fact that approximately four months of a two-year sentence remained did not determine proportionality. The sentence sought to be enforced was the original two-year sentence, and the reduction in time left resulted substantially from the appellant’s unsuccessful section 2 challenge and the consequent stay. In any event, the appellant’s lengthy custody had weakened his Article 8 ties. The public interest in extradition outweighed his private-life rights.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court’s extradition order dated 26 February 2021 was dismissed. The section 2 ground fell away after Wozniak v Circuit Court in Gniezno, Poland [2021] EWHC 2557 (Admin); the Article 8 challenge was rejected.