Pawel Tomasz Chrobot v Polish Judicial Authority

Permission to appeal in an extradition case requires a reasonably arguable prospect that the lower court’s Article 8 assessment was wrong. The High Court should not selectively displace part of an activated sentence by relying on qualifying remand and the prospect of early release. In assessing proportionality, the court must give appropriate weight to private and family life factors strengthened by the passage of time, while also recognising that delay may reduce, but does not necessarily remove, the public interest in extradition. The court should assess the case as it stands and should not project further qualifying remand into the future where that would be wrong in principle.

The appellant challenged an order for extradition to Poland made by District Judge Tempia after an oral hearing. The extradition concerned a conviction warrant relating to a robbery sentence, activated after a later warehouse burglary conviction, and the burglary sentence itself.

Before the High Court, the appellant relied on his good character in the United Kingdom, his long-standing relationship, the passage of time, his qualifying remand and the prospect of early release. He argued that the period between 2013 and 2022, when the warrant was certified, should weigh against the British authorities. The application concerned whether the proposed appeal had a realistic prospect of showing that the Article 8 balance had been wrongly struck.

1. Application refused. The appellant had no realistic prospect of showing that the extradition decision was wrong.
2. The criticism of the finding that he had left Poland as a fugitive was unsustainable. The finding that he attended the activation hearing established that he knew of both matters when he left Poland, and no realistic distinction could be drawn between the two offences for Article 8 purposes.
3. The lower court had properly treated the nine-year period before certification of the warrant as unexplained delay in the appellant’s favour. The absence of culpability by the Polish authorities, and the inability to attribute the delay to the appellant, did not require a different result.
4. The robbery sentence could not be selectively displaced by using qualifying remand and the prospect of early release. Even if the case were approached on that basis, the public interest in extradition plainly and decisively outweighed the private and family life considerations.
5. The passage of time increased the weight of the appellant’s private and family life interests, including the decade-long relationship, and could reduce the public interest weight supporting extradition. Those considerations nevertheless did not make the contrary conclusion reasonably arguable.
6. The court did not project further qualifying remand into the future, applying the principle explained in Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin).

• District Judge Tempia: ordered extradition on 22 February 2023 after an oral hearing on 10 February 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Kerr J refused permission to appeal on the papers. Fordham J refused the renewed application for permission to appeal on 14 November 2023.