PRZEMYSLAW BOJANOWSKI v REGIONAL COURT IN LODZ (POLAND)

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, the appellate court asks whether the district judge’s proportionality decision was wrong, giving appropriate respect to findings of fact and focusing on the outcome rather than isolated reasoning errors. The public interest in extradition is constant and weighty. It will usually prevail unless interference with private or family life is exceptionally severe, although exceptionality is not a separate legal test.

Delay may reduce the weight of extradition and increase its impact on private life, including where the requested person is a fugitive. The impact of delay is generally more important than investigating its precise cause. Further inquiry into culpable delay is principally warranted in a borderline or finely balanced case.

The appellant challenged an order made on 7 July 2020 for his extradition to Poland to serve custodial sentences arising from five drug-related offences. Before the district judge, the sole issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private life under Article 8 ECHR.

On appeal, he argued that insufficient weight had been given to delay between 2006 and 2012, his established life and work in the United Kingdom, the age at which he offended, the effect on support provided to his mother, and the uncertainty created by Brexit. The central issue was whether the district judge ought to have reached a different conclusion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court’s task under section 27(3) and (4) of the Extradition Act 2003 was to decide whether the district judge’s decision was wrong, or whether the new Brexit-related issue or fresh evidence required a different outcome. The court was not entitled simply to second-guess the decision.
2. Extradition interfered with the appellant’s private life, pursued a legitimate aim and was in accordance with law. The proportionality question was whether that interference was outweighed by the constant and weighty public interest in extradition. That interest would ordinarily prevail unless the interference was exceptionally severe; exceptionality was not itself a test.
3. Delay could diminish the weight of the public interest where it suggested a lack of importance attached to extradition, and could increase the impact on private and family life. However, the relevant focus was the impact of delay. In a case involving a fugitive, detailed investigation of the requesting authority’s resources and practices was generally unnecessary unless the proportionality balance was borderline.
4. The district judge had properly treated some delay as unexplained, while finding that it was primarily attributable to the appellant’s departure from Poland and his concealment from the authorities. She also considered the appellant’s lengthy residence and work history in the United Kingdom as factors against extradition.
5. Brexit uncertainty was not a significant factor. It had not been raised below, there was no evidence of the appellant’s immigration status or particular distress, and no proper basis existed for concluding that he could not obtain employment elsewhere. The serious offending, fugitive status, absence of dependants and establishment of private life with knowledge of the outstanding sentences outweighed the countervailing matters.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 7 July 2020, the District Judge ordered extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed. The court held that the district judge’s proportionality decision was not wrong.