Kamil Szubert v Polish Judicial Authority

In extradition proceedings, fugitivity may make a passage-of-time objection under section 14 unavailable and may substantially reduce the weight of delay in the Article 8 proportionality assessment. Serious criminality and a substantial sentence can decisively outweigh the serious effects of extradition on family life. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no reasonably arguable basis for establishing disproportionate interference. An adjournment is unnecessary where the court can fairly assess the relevant alternative outcomes and the present case is clear-cut.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a nine-year-six-month sentence for serious drug offences and a later theft offence. District Judge Bristow ordered extradition on 23 January 2024. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Sir Peter Lane on 29 February 2024.

Before the Administrative Court, the appellant sought an adjournment pending the outcome of his wife's extradition proceedings and permission to appeal on fugitivity, delay and Article 8 family-life grounds. The central issues were whether the wife's proceedings required the appellant's case to be deferred and whether the proposed appeal was reasonably arguable.

1. Adjournment. The court refused to defer the case. It could assess both relevant hypotheses: that the wife remained discharged, or that her case was appealed. The appellant was not shown to be the child's primary carer; his offending and outstanding sentence involved materially stronger public-interest considerations than the wife's case; and any care consequences would not result from refusing permission in this case. The appellant's case was clear-cut. The approach in HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, where related family cases were considered together, did not require an adjournment on these facts.
2. Fugitivity and delay. The finding that the appellant left Poland knowing of the proceedings, shortly after receiving notice of a hearing, while breaching an obligation to notify the authorities of his address, was unassailable. His lack of a legal obligation to remain in Poland did not answer the point. Fugitivity was fatal to the section 14 ground based on passage of time. It also meant that delay could not weigh heavily against extradition in the Article 8 balance.
3. Article 8. Although extradition would seriously affect the appellant, his wife and their daughter, the seriousness of the offending and the length of sentence decisively outweighed the competing family-life considerations. There was no reasonably arguable basis for contending that extradition would be disproportionate. The section 14 oppression threshold was likewise not arguably met. The factual circumstances in Morawski v Poland [2020] EWHC 228 (Admin) were materially less serious and did not assist the appellant.
4. Permission to appeal was refused. Permission to adduce the proposed fresh evidence was formally refused because it could not be decisive.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal refused and adjournment refused.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Bristow ordered the appellant’s extradition on 23 January 2024.
• Permission stage: Sir Peter Lane refused permission to appeal on the papers on 29 February 2024.