Marcin Prawdzik v Reginal Court of Bialystok, Poland

Where an extradition warrant contains conviction and accusation matters, the court should first conduct the Article 8 proportionality analysis separately where the relevant facts and legal considerations differ. It should then consider the matters together and assess their interaction in the round. A fugitive finding may require very strong counterbalancing factors before extradition becomes disproportionate, but that heightened approach should not automatically be applied to accusation matters where the requested person is not a fugitive. Fresh evidence materially affecting the requested person’s circumstances may be considered on appeal.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Minhas’s decision of 13 July 2023 ordering his extradition to Poland. The warrant concerned two conviction matters, for driving-related offences, and two accusation matters, involving an alleged forged driving licence and further driving under the influence of alcohol. The District Judge found the appellant to be a fugitive in relation to the conviction matters but not the accusation matters, and ordered extradition after a single Article 8 proportionality assessment.

On appeal, the central issue was whether conviction and accusation matters should be assessed separately where the relevant facts and legal tests were different. The appellant also sought to rely on fresh evidence concerning the end of his relationship, renewed alcohol misuse, employment, housing and mental health.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court allowed the appellant to adduce fresh evidence because his circumstances had materially changed. It assessed that evidence while relying on unaffected findings of the District Judge.
2. Authorities concerning multiple warrants establish that, where the Article 8 issues and relevant facts are common, conviction and accusation matters may be considered together and proportionality assessed in the round. That approach does not govern cases where materially different considerations apply.
3. In such a case, the court should first make the relevant findings of fact and conduct the Article 8 analysis separately for each set of matters. It should then consider both sets together, including the effect of extradition on one set of matters upon the analysis concerning the other.
4. The District Judge erred by applying the requirement for strong counterbalancing factors to the accusation matters. The appellant was a fugitive in relation to the conviction matters, so the heightened threshold applied there. He was not a fugitive in relation to the accusation matters, and the delay concerning those matters required a distinct and more significant assessment.
5. On its own evaluation, extradition was proportionate for both the conviction and accusation matters. The public interest in honouring extradition obligations, respecting the requesting state’s processes and bringing offenders to justice, together with the seriousness of the offending and the outstanding custodial sentence, outweighed the appellant’s private-life, housing, employment, mental-health and relapse concerns. The delay concerning the accusation matters was insufficient to alter that conclusion.
6. Once extradition was warranted for the conviction matters, the appellant would in any event lose his United Kingdom employment and housing for a substantial period. That interaction weakened the case against extradition on the accusation matters. The section 21A test had been correctly approached by the District Judge.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2024] EWHC 3324 (Admin) — appeal dismissed; extradition upheld for all matters in the warrant.
• Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Minhas, decision dated 13 July 2023 — extradition ordered.