Lukasz Sroczynski v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition case engaging Article 8, the passage of time may weigh against extradition, but its significance must be assessed in context. That context may include the seriousness and age of the offending, the appellant’s fugitive status, the circumstances of any delay, and the strength of the public interest in extradition. A settled private life, employment and time spent in the United Kingdom do not necessarily outweigh that public interest where the private life was established on precarious foundations. The proportionality balance must be considered as a whole.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against the extradition decision of District Judge Bristow. The proposed appeal relied on Article 8 and concerned the effect of the passage of time, the appellant’s private and family life in the United Kingdom, his employment, and his period on extradition bail. Heather Williams J had refused permission on the papers. Fordham J reconsidered the matter following written and oral submissions.

1. Permission refused. There was no realistic prospect of the Article 8 ground succeeding at a substantive hearing.
2. The passage of time could be considered in the Article 8 proportionality assessment. Its weight depended on the circumstances. The court was entitled to consider the proceedings against co-defendants, the appellant’s periods in the Netherlands and Germany, and his fugitive status.
3. The appellant had arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2018 while a fugitive from a two-year custodial sentence. The sentence had originally been suspended and was activated after his knowing failure to comply with probation contact conditions. It arose from numerous drug possession and supply offences committed in 2008 and 2009, for which he was convicted in 2017.
4. The appellant’s settled and productive private life in the United Kingdom, including his employment and time spent on electronically monitored curfew while on extradition bail, was capable of weighing against extradition. However, that private life had been built on precarious foundations. His family circumstances did not alter the balance materially: his mother, another sister and his two children lived in Poland, while one sister was based in the United Kingdom.
5. The strong public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the factors relied upon under Article 8. The proportionality assessment conducted by District Judge Bristow was plainly open to him and plainly correct.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused permission to appeal on 19 September 2024.
• High Court: Heather Williams J had previously refused permission to appeal on the papers.
• District Judge: District Judge Bristow made the extradition decision challenged by the appellant.