Kamil Sikora v District Court in Koszalin (Poland)

The passage of time may reduce the public interest in extradition and strengthen private and family life considerations. Its significance depends on whether delay is culpable and whether family relationships have developed independently of fugitivity. Deliberate failure by a fugitive to comply with an obligation to provide an address weighs against an argument that the authorities caused substantial delay. A custodial sentence is not extinguished by qualifying remand or a prospect of early release. Permission to appeal should be refused where, after a fresh assessment, there is no realistic prospect that the extradition decision would be overturned.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to serve a 12-month custodial sentence for an assault committed when he was aged 17. A previous extradition order had been quashed on judicial review after the earlier hearing proceeded in his absence, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing. District Judge Sternberg ordered extradition on 25 April 2023 after an oral hearing at which the appellant gave evidence.

The appellant sought permission to appeal, relying principally on alleged delay, his rehabilitation, his private and family life in the United Kingdom, the age and relative seriousness of the offence, and the likely effect of remand and early release. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed a realistic prospect of successfully challenging the fresh extradition decision.

1. Permission refused. The court agreed with Johnson J’s paper determination and independently considered the matter afresh. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would overturn the extradition decision.
2. The passage of time can reduce the weight of the public interest supporting extradition. It can also strengthen private and family life ties capable of weighing against extradition. The assessment is fact-specific and context-specific.
3. This was not, even arguably, a case involving substantial culpable or partially attributable delay by the Polish or United Kingdom authorities. The appellant had been under a concrete obligation to notify the Polish probation authorities of any change of address. He deliberately failed to do so, knew that he was breaching the conditions of the suspended sentence, and left Poland as a fugitive. The authorities lacked specific information about his whereabouts during the relevant period.
4. The appellant’s rehabilitation, single conviction, difficult upbringing, age at offending, community ties and lengthy curfew were relevant matters, but did not outweigh the extradition case. A 12-month custodial sentence remained a substantial sentence. Qualifying remand and the prospect of early release did not extinguish it.
5. The absence of innocent third-party family members whose Convention rights would be seriously affected was also material. The appellant’s life in the United Kingdom had been built on his fugitivity.

1. Divisional Court: On 29 November 2022, the court allowed the appellant’s judicial review claim and quashed the earlier extradition decision, referring to the circumstances in which the hearing had proceeded in his absence. The matter was remitted for a fresh extradition hearing. The judgment is cited as [2022] EWHC 3516 (Admin).
2. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Sternberg ordered extradition on 25 April 2023 after a fresh oral hearing. On 21 November 2023, Fordham J refused permission to appeal.