Jaroslaw Halabis v Polish Judicial Authority

In extradition proceedings, an asserted inability to disaggregate a sentence imposed for extradition and non-extradition offences does not, without more, establish the statutory specialty bar. The court applies a strong presumption that the requesting state will comply with its international obligations, particularly where specialty protection has direct application and is expressly guaranteed.

In an Article 8 challenge, lengthy delay and established private and family life must be weighed against the public interest in extradition. Where the sentence is substantial, most remains to be served, and the person came to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, those public interest considerations may decisively outweigh the countervailing factors.

The appellant was wanted by Poland to serve the balance of a seven-year custodial sentence for car thefts. The sentence included an offence of failing to pay child maintenance, which the District Judge had found was not an extradition offence and discharged from the extradition proceedings.

The District Judge nevertheless ordered extradition on 15 August 2022. The appellant renewed arguments under section 17 of the Extradition Act 2003, relying on the asserted impossibility of separating the non-extradition offence from the merged sentence. He also challenged the Article 8 assessment and sought permission to adduce fresh evidence concerning his family circumstances.

The central issues were whether specialty protection was sufficiently secured despite the absence of a mechanism for disaggregation or resentencing, and whether the Article 8 balance or fresh evidence justified appellate intervention.

1. Section 17. The appeal argument was a re-run of the argument rejected in Brodziak v Poland [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin). That case had considered the same concern about merged sentences containing non-extradition offences, including the authorities Cokaj v Albania [2007] EWHC 238 (Admin) and Kucera v Czech Republic [2009] 1 WLR 806.
2. The express absence of a practical mechanism for disaggregation did not make the circumstances sufficiently compelling to overcome the strong presumption that Poland would comply with its international specialty obligations. The specialty protection in Article 625 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was stated to have direct application in Poland and was expressly guaranteed. The distinction relied on by the appellant therefore had no realistic prospect of success.
3. Article 8. The court reconsidered the appellant’s private and family life, including his settled life and employment in the United Kingdom, relationships with his partner and her daughter, support for his children in Poland, the passage of time, and the consequences of extradition. Even accepting the putative fresh evidence as accurate, the substantial public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the countervailing factors. Relevant considerations included the seven-year sentence, the fact that nearly all remained to be served, and that the appellant had come to the United Kingdom knowing of the proceedings and had been found to be a fugitive.
4. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive hearing would conclude that the Article 8 decision was wrong. Permission to appeal was refused. Permission to adduce the fresh evidence was formally refused because it could not be decisive.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused and permission to adduce fresh evidence was refused.
• District Judge Griffiths: On 15 August 2022, extradition to Poland was ordered. The appellant was discharged in respect of the child-maintenance offence because it was not an extradition offence.
• High Court: Bourne J refused permission to appeal on the papers before the appellant renewed the application.