Daniel Owczarek v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal, the proportionality of interference with private life under Article 8 depends on the evidence of the consequences of extradition and the competing public interest in enforcing criminal sentences. Passage of time may support an Article 8 case, but carries reduced weight where the person has evaded justice and caused or contributed to the delay. A settled life established in the United Kingdom with knowledge of an outstanding sentence does not necessarily make extradition disproportionate. Brexit-related uncertainty requires evidence of the person’s immigration status and the likely effect of extradition.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to serve a two-year sentence, activated after he breached the conditions of a suspended sentence imposed for forging a cheque in 2003. The District Judge had proceeded in his absence and rejected the Article 8 private-life argument. The appellant relied on the age and minor nature of the offence, his settled life in the United Kingdom, and uncertainty about his ability to return after extradition following Brexit. The central issue was whether the District Judge’s proportionality assessment was wrong in the sense explained in Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s Article 8 conclusion was not wrong. She had taken the relevant matters into account and reached a conclusion open to her.
2. The appellant’s principal difficulty was the absence of firm, tested evidence of exceptionally severe consequences resulting from extradition. Assertions about losing employment and accommodation were contained in an untested proof of evidence because the appellant had absconded and did not give evidence.
3. The appellant’s private life had been established in the United Kingdom with knowledge of the outstanding Polish sentence and the continuing risk that Poland would enforce it. That circumstance reduced the force of the Article 8 case.
4. The age of the offence was relevant, but the delay was substantially attributable to the appellant’s conduct in leaving Poland as a fugitive and later absconding in the United Kingdom. Extradition should not be refused in circumstances which would encourage evasion of justice by hiding until sufficient time had passed.
5. Brexit uncertainty could not justify refusing extradition without evidence of the appellant’s immigration status and the effect of extradition on his ability to return. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court) ([2022] EWHC 2913 (Admin)): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
• District Judge: order dated 26 April 2022 for extradition to Poland; the Article 8 argument was rejected.