Supinski v Polish Judicial Authority

On an appeal under Extradition Act 2003 s.27, the appellate court must decide whether the extradition judge ought to have answered a question differently and, if so, whether the correct answer required discharge.

Where the requested person was convicted in absence, the court must address deliberate absence and any entitlement to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial. If the factual position changes on appeal, the court must conduct the Article 8 balancing exercise afresh. The public interest in extradition and respect for treaty obligations is substantial, but it remains necessary to assess all the circumstances, including delay, age at offending, family life, rehabilitation and the seriousness of the offending.

The appellant appealed against an order of Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring his extradition to Poland to serve sentences arising from two Polish judgments. He challenged the treatment of a conviction entered in his absence under s.20 of the Extradition Act 2003, relying on the absence of any right to a retrial or reconsideration and disputing that he had deliberately absented himself. He also relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, referring to his age when offending, delay, family life and rehabilitation.

Further information received after the magistrates’ decision established that the warrant overstated the sentence, contained materially inaccurate information about service, and did not confer a right to reconsideration. The central issues were whether the appeal conditions in s.27 were met and whether extradition should nevertheless be ordered after a fresh Article 8 assessment.

1. Appeal refused. The appellant was sought for 49 months, not 2 years and 5 months. In relation to the second Polish judgment, he had been convicted in his absence, had no right to a retrial or reconsideration amounting to a retrial, and the evidence did not establish to the criminal standard that he had deliberately absented himself from the 2015 hearing. The European Arrest Warrant was materially inaccurate as to service, and the court directed that those concerns be relayed to the Polish Judicial Authority.
2. Under s.27(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal could succeed only if the magistrates’ judge ought to have decided a question differently. Under s.27(3)(b), it was additionally necessary that the corrected decision would have required the appellant’s discharge. The appellate court therefore had to decide for itself whether discharge would have followed from the corrected answers.
3. The court disregarded matters relating to the second judgment and conducted the Article 8 balancing exercise only in respect of the first judgment, involving 1 year and 8 months’ immediate custody. Applying the approach in Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and Ors [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), the court treated the public interest in honouring extradition obligations and respecting the judicial decisions of a fellow member state as constant and weighty. The delay was considerable and poorly explained, but it did not produce the exceptionally severe interference with family life required to displace that public interest.
4. The appellant’s age at the time of the offence, settled life in the United Kingdom, lack of reoffending and family responsibilities were weighed in his favour. Against him were the seriousness and violent nature of the offending, the fact that the first offence was committed while subject to a suspended sentence and probation supervision, and his decision to leave Poland knowing that immediate custody awaited him. The court concluded that extradition was not unjust or disproportionate under Article 8 and that the magistrates’ judge would have reached the same result on the corrected facts.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 29 August 2022, District Judge Richard Clews ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted on 9 March 2023. The appeal was refused after the court corrected the factual and legal errors but conducted the Article 8 assessment afresh.