Kamil Drzewiecki v Polish Judicial Authority

On an appeal against an extradition decision, the court must conduct the Article 8 ECHR proportionality balance afresh where material developments have occurred since the extradition hearing. The balance remains fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offences, the public interest in honouring extradition arrangements, delay and the requested person’s responsibility for it, family and private life, evidence of hardship, criminal history, and the prospect of return to the United Kingdom. Domestic sentencing practice is an uncertain guide to the sentence likely to be imposed by the requesting state. Limited or unreliable evidence of family relationships may attract limited weight. Extradition remains proportionate where the public interest outweighs the established interference with Article 8 rights.

The appellant was wanted by Poland under an arrest warrant seeking his surrender to serve sentences for robbery and theft and to stand trial for VAT fraud and fraud by false representation. The District Judge ordered extradition on 9 June 2023. Permission to appeal was granted on the issue whether extradition was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR and therefore barred by section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.

By the time of the appeal, the appellant had served more than the custodial time outstanding on the conviction offences. The central questions were whether the Article 8 balance had to be reconsidered and, if so, whether extradition remained proportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s having served custody exceeding the time outstanding on the conviction matters was a material development after the extradition hearing. The Article 8 balance therefore had to be conducted afresh.
2. The factors considered by the District Judge remained relevant. Delay attracted limited weight against extradition because the appellant had fled Poland after conviction and had not been living fully openly in the United Kingdom. Those matters reduced the requesting state’s culpability for delay.
3. The VAT offences were significant on their face and each carried a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Domestic sentencing practice was an uncertain guide to the sentence likely to be imposed in Poland, particularly in fraud cases where sentence depends critically on value. Even if a domestic comparison suggested a sentence of about 18 months, there remained a substantial public interest in the appellant facing trial.
4. The evidence concerning family life was limited. The relationship had begun only about a year before the extradition hearing, was described as on and off, and was unsupported by evidence from the partner. The court accepted that extradition would cause some emotional and financial hardship, but could not attach substantial weight to it.
5. The absence of United Kingdom convictions or cautions weighed against extradition, although the circumstances of the appellant’s arrest weakened the claim that he was a reformed character. The possible difficulty of re-entering the United Kingdom was also accepted.
6. Overall, the public interest in extradition outweighed the Article 8 interests relied upon. The interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim of honouring the United Kingdom’s international obligations.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Griffiths ordered extradition on 9 June 2023.