MICHAL JENCZ v REGIONAL COURT OF POZNAN, POLAND

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8 ECHR, the court must determine whether the interference with private and family life is outweighed by the strong public interest in extradition. Extradition will usually be proportionate unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe.

On appeal, the question is whether the district judge’s overall evaluation was wrong. An omission or error in reasoning is insufficient unless it materially affected the proportionality assessment. Time already served, time remaining, curfew restrictions and possible early release may be relevant, but the requesting state’s sentence must generally be respected. A fugitive convicted of serious violent offending requires very strong counterbalancing factors to resist extradition.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Callaway’s order of 22 February 2021 directing his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of an 11-month sentence for grievous bodily harm.

The claimant relied on his family and private life in the United Kingdom, time spent in custody during the extradition proceedings, electronically monitored curfew, possible early release, uncertainty concerning his identity document and the effect of extradition on his family. Permission to appeal was granted on the question whether, given the further time elapsed, extradition remained proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

The central issue was whether the district judge’s proportionality assessment was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge’s conclusion that extradition was proportionate was not shown to be wrong.
2. The applicable question on appeal was whether the district judge’s overall evaluation was wrong because established legal principles had been misapplied, an unreasonable material factual finding had been made, a relevant factor had been omitted or an irrelevant factor considered, or the conclusion was irrational or perverse. Errors or omissions in the reasons did not necessarily invalidate the proportionality decision: [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), at §24.
3. The public interest in extradition was very high. The court had to respect the sentence imposed by the requesting state and could not decide whether the claimant had served enough of it. Five months remained, which was still a significant term. A short remaining period did not make extradition inherently disproportionate.
4. Time spent on electronically monitored curfew could in principle be taken into account, but there was no evidence of how the Polish authorities would treat it. The restriction was limited to three hours during the middle of the night and did not tip the balance against extradition.
5. Early release remained speculative. The evidence did not establish that the claimant would be entitled to immediate release on return.
6. The offending was serious and violent, the claimant was properly regarded as a fugitive, and there had been little delay. Very strong counterbalancing factors would therefore have been required. The claimant’s asserted difficulty obtaining a new identity document was insufficiently evidenced and had not been fully formulated. His family circumstances had been properly considered by the district judge.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed, [2023] EWHC 132 (Admin).
• District Judge Callaway: ordered extradition to Poland on 22 February 2021.
• High Court: permission to appeal granted by Eady J on 24 August 2021.