Jerzy Suszynski v Regional Court in Gorzow (Poland)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case requires a ground with a realistic prospect of success. A finding that the requested person was a fugitive may be fatal to an oppression challenge under section 14. In any event, extradition will not be oppressive merely because proceedings are old or the person has established a life in the United Kingdom. Article 8 proportionality requires a careful balance-sheet assessment of all relevant factors, including private and family life, passage of time, changed circumstances, criminality, and ties to the requesting state. Where the lower court has identified and weighed those matters carefully, permission should be refused unless there is a realistic prospect that its conclusion would be overturned.

This was an extradition appeal concerning a conviction warrant issued in Poland for possession of marijuana with intent to supply. A District Judge ordered extradition on 17 February 2023 after finding that the appellant knew of the Polish proceedings and sentence, had travelled to the United Kingdom, and had failed to notify a change of address. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Kerr J, and the appellant renewed the application after his lawyers came off the record.

The proposed grounds concerned oppression under section 14 and proportionality under Article 8. The central questions were whether the finding that the appellant was a fugitive could be challenged and whether extradition would be oppressive or disproportionate having regard to his established life in the United Kingdom and family circumstances.

1. Permission refused. The court had to decide whether the proposed extradition appeal was reasonably arguable and whether there was a realistic prospect that the District Judge’s conclusions would be overturned.
2. The District Judge’s finding that the appellant was a fugitive was justified and correct. The evidence showed that he had been informed of his obligation to notify any change of address, knew that the Polish proceedings were continuing and knew that a two-year sentence had been imposed when he came to the United Kingdom. He did not notify a change of address. That finding was proved to the criminal standard and was fatal to the section 14 oppression ground.
3. In any event, extradition would not be oppressive. The court could not go behind the Polish conviction, and the age of the proceedings did not provide a sufficient basis for the proposed challenge.
4. The Article 8 proportionality conclusion was also clearly correct. The District Judge had undertaken the required balance-sheet exercise, identified the relevant factors and weighed them. Those factors included the appellant’s 15 years in the United Kingdom, settled status, employment, established private life and lack of United Kingdom convictions, together with the absence of a partner or dependants and the existence of extended family in Poland.
5. The District Judge had carefully considered the passage of time, the evidence, and changes in the appellant’s circumstances during the period between issue and certification of the extradition arrest warrant. There was no realistic prospect that the proportionality conclusion would be overturned at a substantive hearing.

1. District Judge Clarke: ordered extradition on 17 February 2023 after an oral hearing on 20 January 2023.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Kerr J refused permission to appeal on the papers. Fordham J refused the renewed application on 16 November 2023.