Przemyslaw Dziaduch v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition case engaging Article 8 ECHR, a long passage of time does not necessarily outweigh the public interest in extradition. Where the requested person has deliberately evaded justice, fugitivity may substantially qualify the weight given to delay, although it does not eliminate the delay from the balancing exercise. The court must assess the overall facts and circumstances, including the person’s age when the offences were committed, the seriousness of the offending, and the nature of the private or family life established in the United Kingdom. A first-instance decision will not be disturbed on appeal where there is no realistic prospect that its proportionality assessment would be found wrong.

The appellant challenged an order for extradition to Poland made by District Judge Rai on 23 February 2023. The extradition concerned two conviction Extradition Arrest Warrants and a remaining custodial sentence of approximately 21 months. The sole issue was Article 8 ECHR.

The appellant relied on the passage of time, his age when the offences were committed, his 16½ years in the United Kingdom, and the absence of UK convictions. Permission to appeal had previously been refused on the papers by Kerr J. The central issue was whether the District Judge had erred in balancing those matters against the public interest in extradition.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no realistic prospect that the extradition decision would be overturned at a substantive hearing.

2. The District Judge was entitled to treat the appellant’s fugitivity as qualifying, rather than eliminating, the significance of the passage of time. The appellant had come to the United Kingdom knowing of his responsibilities under the Polish criminal process, had remained in hiding, and had been unable to obtain identity documents. Delay therefore remained a factor against extradition, but its weight was heavily qualified.

3. The District Judge had properly considered the relevant Article 8 balance. The delay was considered alongside the seriousness and nature of the offending, the public interest in extradition, and the private life established in the United Kingdom. The reference to the well-known passage in HH v Italy recognised that delay may diminish the public interest and increase the impact on private and family life.

4. The appellant’s age at the time of offending was a significant consideration, particularly where the requested person was a minor. However, the District Judge had the chronology and dates before her. The offending was not confined to conduct committed under the age of 18, since further fraud offences were committed when the appellant was 22.

5. The private life established in the United Kingdom was properly characterised as limited. There was no established family life on the evidence, and the appellant’s circumstances included his lack of settled status and reliance on cash-in-hand work.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Rai ordered extradition on 23 February 2023.
• High Court: Kerr J refused permission to appeal on the papers.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused permission to appeal on 16 November 2023.