ELIZA ELZBIETA SAFIN v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an extradition case, the court must assess whether the proposed ground is reasonably arguable and has a realistic prospect of success. An Article 8 proportionality challenge requires consideration of the competing public and private interests in a structured balance-sheet exercise. Appellate intervention is unavailable merely because a different evaluation is possible. The lower court’s assessment must be shown to be wrong, including because crucial factors should have been given substantially different weight. The application was refused where the public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the applicant’s family and private-life circumstances.

The appellant faced extradition to Poland to serve a 12-month custodial sentence activated after breach of the conditions of a suspended sentence. District Judge Snow ordered extradition on 26 August 2021. The appellant’s application for permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Lane J on 8 December 2021 after court fees remained unpaid, and was treated as invalid under the Criminal Procedure Rules.

On renewal, the appellant relied exclusively on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether that ground was reasonably arguable and disclosed a realistic prospect that the extradition decision would be overturned.

1. Renewed application refused. The court considered the Article 8 merits and found no reasonably arguable ground and no realistic prospect of success at a substantive hearing.
2. The proper approach to an Article 8 challenge to extradition is a structured balance-sheet assessment of the public interest in extradition against the relevant private-life and family-life considerations. The appellate court may intervene where, standing back, the overall evaluation was wrong because crucial factors should have been given substantially different weight.
3. The lower court had assessed all relevant circumstances, including the appellant’s completion of alcohol treatment, her breach of probationary obligations, departure from Poland contrary to those obligations, fugitive status, the age of the offending and sentence, her life and employment in the United Kingdom, and the impact on her partner and his children.
4. The public interest was particularly strong because the appellant had breached conditions on which the sentence had been suspended, had left Poland in breach of those conditions, and had later been located and arrested. The passage of time and the appellant’s positive life in the United Kingdom did not outweigh those considerations. The lower court was entitled, and was right, to conclude that the factors against extradition were decisively outweighed by those in favour.
5. The court did not determine whether the earlier fee default barred renewal of permission. Since the application failed on its merits, no directions or further step concerning that issue were appropriate.

1. District Judge Snow: extradition to Poland ordered on 26 August 2021.
2. Lane J: application for permission to appeal refused on the papers on 8 December 2021, being treated as invalid because required court fees had not been paid.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): renewed application for permission to appeal refused on 1 February 2022.