Justyna Wyrebek v Circuit Court, Gliwice, Poland

On an extradition appeal involving fresh medical evidence, the appellate court must make its own assessment of the relevant issue where the evidence was not before the district judge. Under Article 8, extradition requires a balance between the interference with private and family life and the public interest in extradition. There is no exceptionality test, although the consequences of interference may be exceptionally severe. The public interest varies with the seriousness of the offending, and delay may reduce its weight while increasing the impact on family life. Exceptional hardship arising from a person’s learning disability and psychiatric or psychological conditions may make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against a district judge’s order of 19 May 2021 requiring her extradition to Poland to serve an activated sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for eight fraud offences. Before the district judge, she relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on medical evidence concerning depression and possible learning disability.

On appeal, she relied on further psychological evidence, including psychometric testing, concerning her learning disability, vulnerability to exploitation in custody and the risk of deterioration in her mental health. She also relied on delay, the seriousness of the offences and restrictive bail conditions. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted, how the Article 8 assessment should be undertaken, and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. Fresh evidence. The court admitted the further psychological evidence despite its having been available earlier. The interests of justice favoured consideration of a complete medical evidential picture. The evidence was fair and balanced, and materially confirmed aspects of the earlier psychiatric evidence.
2. Appellate approach. Ordinarily, an extradition appeal asks whether the district judge’s decision was wrong, as explained in Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551 and Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] 1 WLR 2889. Where fresh evidence is relied on, however, the appellate court must make its own assessment on all the material, following Olga C v The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 2211 (Admin).
3. Article 8. The governing approach, summarised in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338, is a proportionality balance between interference with private and family life and the public interest in extradition. There is no requirement of exceptionality. The public interest is weighty but varies with the seriousness of the offending. Delay may reduce its weight and increase the impact on private and family life. Extradition will usually be proportionate unless the consequences are exceptionally severe.
4. On the fresh evidence, the appellant had a learning disability, specific cognitive difficulties and significant vulnerability to exploitation and mental deterioration in custody. The resulting hardship was exceptional. It outweighed the public interest in extradition, so extradition would disproportionately interfere with her Article 8 rights.
5. The court therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the extradition order. It was unnecessary to determine the separate ground under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal allowed; extradition order quashed.
• District judge: extradition ordered on 19 May 2021 after rejecting the appellant’s section 2 and Article 8 objections.