Rafal Marcin Kubik v Polish Judicial Authority

In extradition proceedings, Article 8 will not realistically resist extradition where the public interest in surrender decisively outweighs the passage of time, private and family life, health conditions, changes in custody and qualifying remand. A later attempt to aggregate foreign sentences does not justify adjourning or deferring the proceedings where aggregation has not occurred, would not materially alter the position, and the extradition arrest warrant remains valid.

The appellant resisted extradition to Poland, relying on Article 8 and emphasising the delay in issuing and certifying the extradition arrest warrant. He also sought an adjournment because an application had been made in Poland to aggregate his consecutive sentences. District Judge Clarke had found the delay properly explained by the appellant’s fugitivity and related circumstances. Freedman J had refused permission to appeal on paper. The issues before Fordham J were whether the Article 8 ground had a realistic prospect of success and whether the later aggregation application justified vacating or adjourning the hearing.

1. Article 8. The Article 8 ground had no realistic prospect of success. The appellant had evaded two consecutive custodial sentences in Poland and had no UK-based dependants. The relevant considerations included the passage of time, private and/or family life, health conditions, the transformation in custody and qualifying remand. Those matters were decisively outweighed by the strong public interest in extradition.
2. Delay. The periods involved in issuing and certifying the extradition arrest warrant had been unimpeachably found by District Judge Clarke to be properly explained on the evidence by the appellant’s fugitivity and related circumstances.
3. Aggregation application. The May 2024 document recording receipt of an application by a Polish court did not provide a viable basis for vacating or adjourning the hearing, or for granting permission to appeal. Aggregation had not taken place and would not materially change the substance of the position. The extradition arrest warrant remained valid.
4. Any appropriate sentence aggregation could be regularised after the appellant’s return to Poland, if the Polish court considered that appropriate. There was no legal, technical or substantive basis for waiting for the Polish application to produce an outcome.
5. The application for an adjournment was refused and permission to appeal was refused.

• District Judge Clarke: determined the extradition proceedings and found the delay in issuing and certifying the extradition arrest warrant properly explained.
• Freedman J: refused permission to appeal on paper in August 2024.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused the application for an adjournment and refused permission to appeal.