Karol Sztakowski v Regional Court in Wlcoclawek (Poland)

In extradition cases engaging Article 8, the court must assess whether interference with private and family life is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. There is no test of exceptionality, but the consequences relied upon must be sufficiently severe to make extradition disproportionate.

Fugitivity is a fact-sensitive concept. A person may be a fugitive where they knowingly leave the requesting state to place themselves beyond an ongoing legal process, even without a formal obligation to remain or an extant domestic warrant. Fugitivity strengthens the public interest in extradition and may reduce the weight of delay and family life developed outside the requesting state.

On appeal, the court asks whether the extradition judge was wrong; it does not conduct the proportionality assessment afresh. Fresh evidence must be genuinely unavailable below and decisive.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve an aggregate sentence of four years and nine months for burglary and attempted robbery offences.

The appeal concerned Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant relied on the welfare and mental health of his four children, the effect on his partner and family home, delay, alleged error in finding him a fugitive from 2017, and changes in his lifestyle. Fresh evidence concerning the family’s welfare was admitted.

The central issues were whether the District Judge’s fugitivity finding and Article 8 proportionality assessment were wrong, and whether the fresh evidence could require a different result.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s and his family’s Article 8 rights.
2. Fugitivity is fact-sensitive. A person is a fugitive where they knowingly place themselves beyond the reach of a legal process. This may occur by leaving the requesting state during ongoing proceedings, knowing that imprisonment may follow, even where there is no formal restriction on departure or domestic warrant requiring surrender. Pursuing an appeal from the United Kingdom does not automatically negate fugitivity. [2022] EWHC 3163 (Admin) was applied and explained.
3. A finding of fugitivity is highly material to Article 8 proportionality. It strengthens the public interest in extradition, including the prevention of the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven, and may diminish the weight attached to delay and family life developed while the person knowingly remained outside the requesting state. Fugitivity is not an absolute bar to an Article 8 claim.
4. The appellate question under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 was whether the District Judge was wrong. The court was not to conduct a fresh balancing exercise. The District Judge had carefully considered the children’s welfare, the family’s circumstances, the seriousness of the offences, the substantial sentence and the public interest in extradition. His conclusion was neither irrational nor legally flawed.
5. The fresh evidence supplied further detail about difficulties already identified in the Section 7 report. It was not fundamentally different from the material considered below and was not decisive. The threshold for refusing extradition on Article 8 grounds was not met.

The seriousness of the offences and the sentence remained significant factors favouring extradition. The appellant’s fugitive status from 2017 was also properly taken into account in assessing delay and proportionality.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed; the extradition order was upheld.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Curtis ordered extradition to Poland on 21 March 2024.