Marek Pawlowski v Regional Court in Tarnow, Poland

In a renewed extradition appeal based on private life under Article 8 ECHR, permission should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that extradition would be found disproportionate. The court must assess the combination of the case’s features, including the seriousness of the offending, compliance with obligations imposed by the sentencing court, qualifying remand, private and family circumstances, and the practical prospects of early release. A possible early-release application remains a matter for the requesting state. It does not ordinarily justify adjourning the appeal or require the English court to decide whether the punishment has become sufficient.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Tempia on 18 November 2022. He was wanted by Poland to serve a two-year custodial sentence activated after he failed fully to pay a financial obligation imposed during a suspended sentence.

The renewed application relied on Article 8 private life and putative fresh evidence concerning a later payment, prison progress, qualifying remand and an application for early release in Poland. Permission to appeal had previously been refused on the papers by Julian Knowles J on 19 July 2023. The central issues were whether the new circumstances created a viable Article 8 appeal and whether the hearing should be adjourned pending the Polish early-release process.

1. Adjournment. The application to adjourn for 4–6 weeks was refused. The early-release application had been made in April 2023 and relevant information had been available by July 2023. The evidence did not justify the lateness of the application, and there was no proper evidential basis for criticism of the Polish lawyer or HMP Wandsworth. The court was not required to await the outcome of the Polish proceedings or involve the CPS in progressing them.
2. Article 8 assessment. The court considered the appellant’s employment, charitable work, private life and friendships in the United Kingdom, the passage of time, qualifying remand and the absence of family dependants. Those matters had to be assessed in combination with the appellant’s failure to discharge the financial obligation, his knowledge of that obligation, his fugitive conduct, and his subsequent Polish convictions.
3. Early release. There was a real prospect that the Polish application might succeed, but that decision belonged to the Polish authorities. It was not for the English court to decide whether the appellant had been punished enough: Dobrowolski v Poland [2023] EWHC 763 (Admin) at §§4–15 and §24.
4. Disposition. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would establish that extradition was a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s private-life rights. Permission to adduce the putative fresh evidence was refused because it was incapable of being decisive. Permission to appeal was refused, together with the application for an adjournment and a direction to the CPS.

• High Court (Administrative Court): renewed application for permission to appeal refused; extradition order left undisturbed.
• District Judge Tempia: extradition ordered on 18 November 2022.
• High Court: permission to appeal refused on the papers by Julian Knowles J on 19 July 2023.