Marcin Cwiklinski v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, substantial interference with established family life does not justify appellate intervention where the first-instance judge has identified and properly weighed all relevant factors. Passage of time may carry reduced weight where it is substantially explained by the requested person’s fugitivity. The public interest in preventing safe havens and securing extradition remains powerful, particularly where the person can return to the United Kingdom after serving the sentence.

The appellant, aged 24, challenged an order for his extradition to Poland following conviction and activation of a 10-month sentence for offences committed when he was 18. He relied solely on Article 8 ECHR, referring to his relationship with his partner and her four-year-old son, their vulnerabilities, the passage of time, his rehabilitation and the impact of extradition.

District Judge Sternberg had ordered extradition on 24 February 2023. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Kerr J on 27 September 2023. The issue before Fordham J was whether there was a realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would establish an error in the district judge’s evaluative balancing exercise.

1. Permission refused. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would show that the district judge’s assessment under Article 8 ECHR had gone wrong.
2. The relevant considerations included the appellant’s troubled background and young age at the time of offending, the seriousness and impacts of extradition, the partner’s and child’s interests and vulnerabilities, the lesser seriousness of the offences, the appellant’s subsequent crime-free life in the United Kingdom, and the passage of time.
3. The passage of time attracted limited weight because the period after the appellant’s release was materially connected with his failure to comply with the suspended sentence conditions, breach of the address-notification requirement and departure from Poland as a fugitive. The family life established after that departure had to be assessed against the same background.
4. There were powerful public interests in extradition, including preventing safe havens and addressing fugitivity. The passage of time was not especially lengthy and was readily explicable. The appellant could return to the United Kingdom, his partner and her child, after serving the 10-month sentence.
5. The district judge had considered and properly weighed all relevant features. Nothing had been omitted, mischaracterised or misstated, and appellate restraint required refusal of permission.

• District Judge: District Judge Sternberg ordered the appellant’s extradition on 24 February 2023.
• High Court: Kerr J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 27 September 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J, on 16 November 2023, refused permission to appeal.