Lukasz Kobus v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, the court must balance the strong public interest in extradition against the appellant’s private and family life, including the best interests of any affected child. The passage of time may reduce the public interest in extradition while strengthening private and family ties. Its significance depends on the reasons for the delay and the appellant’s conduct. Where the lower court has carefully assessed those competing considerations, permission should be refused if there is no realistic prospect that the appeal would succeed at a substantive hearing.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland following conviction for fraud, theft and drink-driving offences committed between 2001 and 2012. A replacement extradition arrest warrant followed the aggregation of his Polish sentences and the quashing of the earlier extradition order.

The District Judge found that the appellant had not been proved to be a fugitive but ordered extradition after considering Article 8 rights affecting the appellant, his partner and their 12-year-old daughter. The appeal concerned solely Article 8. The issue was whether there was a realistic prospect of success at a substantive hearing.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no realistic prospect that the Article 8 appeal would succeed at a substantive hearing.

2. In assessing Article 8 in an extradition case, the court must consider the competing weight of the public interest in extradition and the private and family life of the persons affected. The daughter’s best interests were a primary consideration.

3. The passage of time generally tends to reduce the weight of the public interest supporting extradition and to increase the weight of established private and family ties. Its effect must nevertheless be assessed in context. The delay before 2013 was explained by the suspended sentences being breached and activated, and the later delay was connected with the domestic extradition process, sentence aggregation in Poland and the need for a replacement warrant.

4. The appellant’s lack of fugitive status, settled family life and employment history, absence of United Kingdom convictions, and decision not to leave after release on remand were relevant. They did not outweigh the strong public interest in extradition to serve the remaining custodial sentence of 4 years, 7 months and 16 days, subject to qualifying remand credit.

5. The District Judge had carefully considered the impact of extradition on the appellant, his partner and their daughter. The High Court, standing back and considering the overall picture, agreed with that assessment.

• District Judge Zani: ordered extradition on 15 March 2023 after an oral hearing on 13 January 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused permission to appeal because there was no realistic prospect of success on the Article 8 issue.