Robert Czeslaw Kobierowski v Poland

In assessing proportionality under article 8 in an extradition case, the passage of time may diminish the public interest in extradition, but only where the facts justify that conclusion. It may also increase the impact on private and family life by strengthening relationships formed in the United Kingdom. The court must assess both effects separately within the overall balance. Time attributable to a fugitive who knowingly evades justice will generally carry little or no weight against extradition. Permission to appeal should be refused where the lower court applied these principles and reached an unimpeachable factual assessment.

The appellant challenged the decision of District Judge Clews ordering his extradition to Poland to serve a custodial sentence for drug and firearms offences. He relied on putative fresh evidence concerning a possible transfer of the sentence to the United Kingdom and argued that the passage of time made extradition disproportionate under article 8.

The High Court considered whether the proposed transfer was realistically available and whether the district judge had erred in evaluating the effect of delay on the public interest and on the appellant’s private and family life.

1. Application refused. There was no reasonably arguable basis for an appeal. Permission to rely on the putative fresh evidence was also refused because it could not be decisive.
2. The proposed transfer of sentence had no realistic prospect of success. Under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons 1983, transfer required the sentenced person to be a national of the administering state. The appellant was a Polish national, not a British national, so the relevant precondition was not satisfied.
3. Passage of time has two distinct possible effects in an article 8 proportionality assessment. It may diminish the public interest in extradition, but the word “may” requires an assessment of the particular facts. It may also increase the impact on private and family life by strengthening life and relationships established in the United Kingdom.
4. The district judge considered both effects. The periods between the offending, the warrant and the arrest were substantially attributable to the appellant, who knew of the proceedings and had acted as a fugitive. The delay therefore did not significantly diminish the public interest in extradition.
5. The district judge separately considered the appellant’s long residence in the United Kingdom, his partner and his young child, and gave proper weight to the resulting private and family life. The High Court saw no error of approach and no realistic prospect that extradition would be found disproportionate.

1. District Judge Clews: ordered the appellant’s extradition after a hearing on 19 January 2023.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 26 September 2023. The renewed application was refused on 20 February 2024, and permission to rely on putative fresh evidence was also refused.