Damian Dablewski v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland

On an appeal against extradition, the court must decide whether the extradition judge’s decision was wrong, focusing on the proportionality outcome rather than merely errors in reasoning. The public interest in extradition remains strong, particularly where the requested person is a fugitive, but a child’s best interests are a primary consideration. Relevant factors may include time already served, the period remaining, immigration barriers affecting family contact and the nature of the relationship with the children.

The court should not prejudge whether a requesting state will grant discretionary early release. Immigration issues must be properly formulated, but expert evidence is not an absolute prerequisite. On the particular facts, the combination of the appellant’s custody, immigration difficulties, young children and relationship with them made extradition disproportionate.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Snow on 9 March 2023. Poland sought his extradition to serve a cumulative sentence for robbery and criminal damage.

The appellant had lived in the United Kingdom since 2016 and had two young children here. By the hearing of the appeal, deductions for time spent in custody meant that only a comparatively short period remained to be served in Poland. The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s and his children’s rights under article 8.

1. Appeal allowed and discharge ordered. The statutory conditions in sections 27(3) and 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 were satisfied. The District Judge ought to have decided the article 8 proportionality question differently and would then have been required to order discharge.
2. On an appeal under section 26, the question is whether the District Judge was wrong. The Administrative Court exercises a reviewing function and does not simply substitute its own view. The focus is the proportionality outcome, although the reasons must be examined carefully: errors or omissions do not necessarily establish that the outcome was wrong.
3. The public interest in extradition is constant and weighty. It will generally outweigh family-life rights unless the interference is exceptionally severe. Children’s best interests are a primary consideration, although they may be outweighed by countervailing factors. The balance remains fact-sensitive, including where the requested person is a fugitive.
4. The opportunity to apply for discretionary early release in Poland was a neutral factor. The court preferred the approach in Sobczyk v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland [2017] EWHC 3353 (Admin), under which domestic courts should not anticipate how the requesting state will exercise its sentencing discretion. Even applying the more permissive approach in RT v Poland [2017] EWHC 1978 (Admin), the evidence did not permit a reliable conclusion about the appellant’s prospects.
5. The substantial time already served in United Kingdom custody materially changed the factual position and was relevant under section 27(4)(a) of the Act. The comparatively short period remaining had significant, though not decisive, weight in the proportionality balance.
6. The District Judge was wrong to treat the absence of expert evidence as preventing useful consideration of the Immigration Rules. He was also wrong to give weight to a speculative possibility of return and to treat likely deportation in the counterfactual as a factor favouring extradition. The court’s task was an extradition appeal, not a quasi-deportation hearing, and the material before the District Judge could not support a reliable deportation assessment.
7. Giving significant weight to time served, the appellant’s durable relationship with his young children and the immigration difficulties affecting future contact, the factors favouring discharge prevailed. The age of the offending did not independently establish error: the District Judge was entitled, by a narrow margin, to give it no weight in light of the appellant’s fugitive status.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2024] EWHC 957 (Admin) — appeal allowed and the appellant discharged.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Snow ordered extradition in a judgment dated 9 March 2023.