KULIGA v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES

Where extradition is sought by a state with applicable speciality arrangements, the court starts from a strong presumption that the requesting state will comply with its international obligations. That presumption is displaced only by compelling evidence to the contrary. The requesting state need not explain in detail how an aggregate sentence will be disaggregated, provided its response confirms that the requested person will not serve punishment for an offence in respect of which extradition is refused.

The appellant challenged the District Judge’s order of 17 February 2021 directing his extradition to Poland. Permission to appeal was granted by Holman J on 8 July 2021. The European arrest warrant concerned convictions for violence, threats, failure to pay child maintenance and driving with excess alcohol.

The District Judge discharged the appellant in respect of the child-maintenance offence because it was not an extradition offence, but rejected the speciality challenge and found extradition proportionate under article 8 of the ECHR. The central issue was whether Poland’s statement that the aggregate sentence could not be enforced supplied compelling evidence that speciality obligations would not be honoured.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was correct to conclude that extradition was not barred by speciality.
2. The United Kingdom had speciality arrangements with Poland through Article 27 of the Council Framework Decision 2002. The court applied the strong presumption that Poland would comply with its obligations. Only compelling evidence could displace that presumption.
3. The phrase “cannot be enforced” confirmed that Poland would not enforce punishment relating to the offence for which the appellant had been discharged. There was no significant ambiguity, and the authorities were not required to explain precisely how the aggregate sentence would be disaggregated.
4. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Polish authorities were to be assumed to act rationally and coherently. The speciality challenge therefore failed. The limited article 8 ground fell away, and extradition remained ordered.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s order dismissed.
2. District Judge: ordered extradition to Poland, discharged the appellant in respect of the child-maintenance offence, and rejected the speciality challenge.
3. Holman J: granted permission to appeal on 8 July 2021.