JACEK TCHORZEWSKI v REGIONAL COURT IN LUBLIN (POLAND)

In an extradition appeal, established private and family life in the United Kingdom, including the best interests of a child, does not necessarily outweigh the public interest in extradition. The court must conduct a fact-sensitive Article 8 balance.

Particular weight may be given to the seriousness of the offences and sentence, the appellant’s knowledge of the criminal proceedings, fugitive status, breach of duties to notify an address, and the absence of unjustified delay by the requesting state. Family life built while knowingly evading criminal responsibilities may carry reduced weight. Permission to appeal and amendment of grounds may be refused where the proposed argument has no substantive legal merit.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment for theft, burglary and handling offences. District Judge Bristow ordered extradition on 18 November 2020.

The appellant’s original grounds included an Article 8 argument, but it was omitted from the perfected grounds. His solicitors later came off the record, and he sought to raise Article 8 again, relying on his residence in the United Kingdom with his wife and young daughter. The court treated his letter as an application to amend the grounds and considered the Article 8 case on its merits.

The central issues were whether the appeal should be amended, whether permission to appeal should be granted, and whether extradition was compatible with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his family.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The application to amend the grounds of appeal to rely on Article 8 was refused because the proposed argument had no substantive legal merit on the materials before the court.
2. The court accepted that the appellant, his wife and their daughter had established private and family life in the United Kingdom. The daughter’s best interests were important, and extradition would have serious consequences for all three family members.
3. Those considerations were decisively outweighed by the public interest in extradition. Relevant factors included the substantial sentence, the seriousness and repeated nature of the offences, and the appellant’s conduct. He had come to the United Kingdom knowing of the criminal proceedings, had breached a known duty to notify a change of address, and had remained here as a fugitive.
4. The passage of time did not materially assist the appellant because it resulted from his own fugitive conduct and unsuccessful attempts to resist extradition. The Polish authorities had pursued the matter promptly. The family’s private and family life had been built knowingly under the shadow of the appellant’s evasion of his responsibilities.
5. The extradition judge had undertaken the required Article 8 balance-sheet exercise and had concluded that extradition was compatible with the rights engaged. There was no realistic prospect that the conclusion could be overturned as substantively wrong. The daughter would remain with her mother, who was her primary carer.
6. The court also considered it fair to proceed in the appellant’s absence. He had received clear notification and reminders of the hearing. He retained a means of applying urgently to reopen the appeal on the papers, although the threshold for reopening was high.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court considered the appellant’s proposed Article 8 ground and dismissed the application for permission to appeal. It refused the application to amend the perfected grounds.
• District Judge Bristow: Extradition to Poland was ordered on 18 November 2020.