Piotr Stepien v The Circuit Court in Swidnica, Poland

Where fresh evidence materially changes the factual basis of an extradition decision, the appellate court must make its own assessment of all the material. Under Article 8, the question is whether interference with private and family life is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. There is no freestanding test of exceptionality, although extradition will generally be proportionate unless its consequences are exceptionally severe. The public interest varies with the seriousness of the offending and may be reduced by delay. Children’s interests are a primary consideration, but neither the primary nor paramount consideration. Exceptional hardship, particularly a risk of harm to children with significant additional needs, may outweigh the public interest where the remaining offending is minor.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Blake’s order of 1 March 2019 requiring extradition under the Extradition Act 2003. The district judge had considered extradition in relation to two European arrest warrants, including allegations and convictions for more serious offending.

During the proceedings, one warrant was withdrawn and reissued, and the appellant was discharged by District Judge Ezzat in July 2021 on Article 8 grounds. The appeal therefore concerned only the remaining low-level dishonesty offences. The appellant relied on updated evidence concerning the effect of extradition on his partner and three children, one of whom had substantial developmental and behavioural difficulties. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted and whether, on the up-to-date material, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

The appeal was allowed. The order for extradition was quashed and the appellant was discharged.

1. Fresh evidence and the appellate test. Although an extradition appeal ordinarily asks whether the district judge’s decision was wrong, fresh evidence requiring consideration of materially changed circumstances requires the appellate court to make its own assessment on all the material. The updated social-work evidence was admitted because it satisfied the applicable criteria.
2. Article 8 principles. Extradition is barred where it would produce a disproportionate interference with private and family life under Article 8 and sections 21 and 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. There is no separate exceptionality test. The court must balance the interference against the weighty public interest in extradition, whose weight varies with the nature and seriousness of the offending. Delay may reduce that public interest and increase the impact on family life.
3. The interests of children are a primary consideration, but not the primary or paramount consideration. The court must evaluate the actual consequences of extradition for the children, including any exceptional severity or risk of harm.
4. On the updated evidence, extradition would cause exceptionally severe hardship to the family, particularly the child with significant additional needs. The risk that the appellant’s partner, as a single parent, would be unable to meet the children’s needs and protect them from harm outweighed the public interest in extradition. The remaining offences were minor and the delay represented a significant proportion of the children’s lives.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed. District Judge Blake’s extradition order of 1 March 2019 was quashed and the appellant was discharged.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Blake ordered extradition on 1 March 2019 after conducting the Article 8 balancing exercise.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Ezzat later discharged the appellant on Article 8 grounds in a judgment dated 22 July 2021 following withdrawal and reissue of one European arrest warrant.