Lucasz Galadzun v Polish Judicial Authority (Regional Court in Gdansk)

On an extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate question is whether the district judge’s decision was wrong, not whether the evidence or submissions should be reheard. Findings of fact ordinarily receive respect, although the appellate court may conclude that the overall evaluative judgment was wrong.

In an Article 8 proportionality assessment, a checklist organises the inquiry but does not replace a substantive, weight-sensitive balancing exercise. Delay caused by a fugitive’s deliberate evasion does not ordinarily amount to culpable delay. Extradition may remain proportionate despite long delay, settled life in the United Kingdom and a credible increased suicide risk where the public interest, the outstanding sentence, the seriousness of the offending and the applicant’s fugitivity substantially outweigh the countervailing factors.

The appellant, a Polish national, appealed against District Judge Curtis’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring his extradition to Poland under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. He had left Poland in 2006 to avoid serving prison sentences for three burglaries committed between 2001 and 2005 and had lived in the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years.

Permission to appeal was granted on the issue of disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The appeal also raised whether the district judge had been wrong to find that there was no culpable delay by the Polish authorities. The central question was whether the district judge ought to have decided either issue differently so as to require the appellant’s discharge.

1. Statutory appeal test. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 27(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, the question was whether the district judge ought to have decided a question differently and, if so, would have been required to order discharge. The appeal was not a rehearing or a judicial-review exercise. The appellate court had to focus on whether the decision itself was wrong.
2. Culpable delay. The Polish judicial authorities had not known where the appellant was. There was no evidential basis for attributing knowledge held by the Polish Embassy to the regional criminal court. A state’s different institutional components could not automatically be fixed with one another’s knowledge in the absence of evidence. Although the delay in issuing the wanted notice for one offence was inordinate and unexplained, the authorities had acted promptly in relation to the other offences and had actively searched for the appellant. The finding of no culpable delay was therefore not wrong.
3. Article 8. Article 8 was engaged, but extradition was not disproportionate. The check-list approach identified in Celinski supplied structure but did not turn the analysis into a numerical exercise. The court had to assess the substance and measured weight of the competing factors.
4. The principal cause of delay was the appellant’s deliberate fugitivity. The offences were three burglaries, including group offences, and were not minor for the purposes of the seriousness assessment. The appellant’s settled life, family relationship in the United Kingdom, early trauma and credible increased suicide risk on return were material considerations. However, his outstanding sentence, similar offending in the United Kingdom, deception in his settled-status application, continuing ties to Poland and the strong public interest in enforcing sentences outweighed those factors. There was no evidence that Polish prison authorities could not provide appropriate mental-health safeguards.
5. The district judge’s proportionality conclusion fell within Limb (ii) of the taxonomy in Re B: it was right. The court nevertheless directed cooperation between the United Kingdom and Polish authorities to ensure transfer of relevant medical records and continuity of risk management. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the decision of District Judge Curtis at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21 March 2024. The appeal was dismissed.