Sebastian Grzelak v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland

In an Article 8 extradition appeal, the court must assess the particular combination of circumstances in the balance. Youth at the time of offending, delay, rehabilitation, family impact and the possibility of separation may weigh against extradition, but they do not determine the outcome. Delay must be assessed in context, including whether the person deliberately evaded sentence as a fugitive. Where the lower court has expressly considered the relevant factors and balanced them against the public interest in extradition, an appellate court will not interfere absent an arguable error of approach. The public interest may be especially weighty where the offences are serious, custodial sentences remain outstanding and fugitivity has contributed to the passage of time.

The appellant challenged a decision of District Judge McGarva dated 8 September 2022 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve outstanding custodial sentences for two violent offences committed when he was aged 17. He relied on Article 8, the passage of time, his youth when offending, his rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, and the effect of extradition on his partner and children.

The appeal came before the Administrative Court on renewal of an application for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the district judge had erred in carrying out the Article 8 balance-sheet assessment.

1. Permission refused. The appeal had no realistic prospect of success. The district judge had expressly taken account of the age at which the offences were committed, their age, the delay, the appellant’s life in the United Kingdom, the interests of his partner and children, and the possible inability to return to them.
2. Article 8 extradition cases turn on their specific facts and combination of features. The court rejected the submission that the judge had failed to give sufficient weight to youth offending or the passage of time. There was no arguable error of approach.
3. Delay could operate against extradition, but it had to be assessed in context. The appellant had left Poland knowing that he was required to surrender to serve his sentence and had been correctly treated as a fugitive. The new life established in the United Kingdom had therefore been built while evading custody. The materials also showed efforts to trace him.
4. The private and family consequences were recognised, including harm to the children and financial effects on the partner. They did not outweigh the strong public interest in extradition. That interest was strengthened by the seriousness and circumstances of the two violent offences, the custodial sentences, the further violence committed during the suspension period, the substantial sentence remaining, and the appellant’s fugitivity.
5. Late materials, including an untranslated Polish document concerning a possible application to aggregate and resuspend the sentences, were incapable of being decisive. Permission to rely on the putative fresh evidence was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal from the extradition order was refused. Permission to rely on putative fresh evidence was also refused.
• District Judge McGarva: ordered extradition on 8 September 2022.