Slawomir Sekula v Regional Court In Bydgoszcz

In an extradition appeal engaging European Convention on Human Rights Article 8, the court must balance the individual’s private and family life against the public interest in extradition. Passage of time carries limited weight where it is explained by the appellant’s knowledge of the activated sentence, return to the United Kingdom and subsequent extradition proceedings. The court cannot go behind the activation of a sentence by the requesting state. Strong public interest considerations, including the seriousness of the conviction and relevant previous convictions, may decisively outweigh family, financial and other personal impacts. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no reasonably arguable error of law and no realistic prospect of success.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Clarke on 7 July 2022. He was wanted by Poland under a conviction Extradition Arrest Warrant in connection with a two-year custodial sentence imposed for fraud. The suspended sentence had been activated following a further conviction and failure to fulfil a compensation condition.

The appellant relied on the age of the offending, the proportionality of the sentence, alleged attempts to pay compensation, his family and working life in the United Kingdom, and the effects of extradition on his partner, her son, his children and his parents. Linden J refused permission to appeal on the papers. The central issue was whether the renewed appeal disclosed a reasonably arguable error of law, particularly in the Article 8 balancing exercise.

1. Permission refused. The court agreed with Linden J that there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal and no realistic prospect that the Article 8 appeal could succeed.
2. The court could not go behind the activation of the two-year sentence by the requesting state. The activation followed the further alimony conviction and non-fulfilment of the compensation condition. The appellant’s attempts or alleged difficulties in paying compensation did not alter that conclusion.
3. The passage of time since the offending and the suspended sentence did not carry significant weight. The appellant knew of the sentence, its conditions and the failure to pay compensation. He learned promptly that the sentence had been activated, returned to the United Kingdom, and was later arrested under the Extradition Arrest Warrant. Those circumstances explained the lapse of time.
4. Strong public interest considerations favoured extradition. The background included previous Polish convictions for dishonesty. The fact that the alimony offence would not have been criminal in the United Kingdom did not undermine the activated sentence or the public interest in extradition.
5. The District Judge had undertaken the required European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 balancing exercise. The appellant’s United Kingdom family life, employment, financial responsibilities and the likely effects on his partner, her son, his children and parents had been considered individually and cumulatively. The features favouring extradition decisively outweighed those against it.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2023] EWHC 446 (Admin): renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• High Court — Linden J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 11 January 2023.
• District Judge Clarke — extradition ordered on 7 July 2022 after an oral hearing on 26 May 2022.