Andrzej Dobbek v Regional Court in Torun, Poland

In an extradition appeal engaging article 8, the court must assess the requested person’s private and family life against the substantial public interest in honouring extradition obligations and respecting foreign criminal justice processes. A person is a fugitive only where he knowingly places himself beyond the reach of legal process; the issue is fact-sensitive and must be proved to the criminal standard. The passage of time cannot be relied upon where it results from such conduct. Errors concerning fugitive status, the seriousness of the offending, relevant delay and earlier extradition proceedings may invalidate the article 8 balance. Fresh evidence on appeal is subject to a strict statutory test, although the court retains an inherent procedural jurisdiction to admit evidence where the interests of justice require it.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Callaway on 23 March 2021 directing his extradition to Poland to serve the outstanding part of a suspended sentence imposed following his conviction for offences committed in 2001 and 2002. Permission to appeal was granted on the treatment of article 8.

The appellant had previously been extradited to Poland for trial in 2013, was released, and later returned to the United Kingdom. The District Judge treated him as a fugitive, attached weight to the seriousness of the offences and balanced those matters against the age of the case, delay, his family life, lack of UK convictions and poor health. The central issues were whether that assessment was legally flawed and whether further information should be admitted on appeal.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge had applied section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, which concerns accusation cases, instead of section 21, although the principal error concerned the article 8 assessment.
2. Fugitive status is a non-statutory concept. The relevant question is whether the requested person knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of legal process. The Appellant left Poland before trial, was not shown to have been subject to restrictions preventing his return to the United Kingdom, and had not knowingly left while required to serve a prison sentence. The evidence also showed that he had provided the Polish authorities with his United Kingdom address and contact details. The District Judge therefore could not be sure to the criminal standard that he was a fugitive.
3. The District Judge had failed to take account of the earlier extradition proceedings and had not properly analysed the causes of delay. He also wrongly characterised the offending as involving a significant breach of trust.
4. The further information supplied by Poland was decisive in any event. It confirmed that the Appellant had been released after the activities requiring his presence had been completed, was not subject to preventive measures, and could return home. It also showed that the probation officer could readily contact him. The statutory fresh-evidence provisions impose a strict test, but the evidence satisfied that test.
5. On the redone article 8 balance, substantial weight was given to treaty obligations, preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven for criminals and respecting foreign legal processes. Countervailing weight arose from the age of the offences, delay, the short remaining sentence and the Appellant’s long-established family and private life in the United Kingdom. The balance favoured the Appellant. The court emphasised that the assessment was highly fact-sensitive and created no precedent on the particular facts.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Callaway ordered extradition on 23 March 2021. The High Court allowed the appeal against that order.