Jakub Dobosz v District Court of Lublin, Poland

On an article 8 extradition appeal, an appellate court may conclude that a properly conducted balance-sheet assessment was nevertheless wrong when the overall evaluation cannot stand. The court must be persuaded that the decision was wrong, rather than that it would have balanced the factors differently. Such cases are rare, particularly where the interference relied on is mainly private life rather than established family life involving dependent children.

UK courts must respect a requesting state’s Convention-compliant sentencing regime and should rarely substitute their own view of the appropriate sentence. Time spent on electronically monitored bail and the possibility of early release may be relevant, but their weight depends on the evidence and circumstances.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by a district judge on 15 November 2022. He was wanted in Poland to serve nearly two years of a sentence imposed for offences committed when he was aged 17.

Permission to appeal was limited to article 8 of the ECHR. The appellant relied on his age at the time of offending, the relatively low value and age of the offences, his life and family ties in the United Kingdom, delay in issuing the warrant, time spent subject to electronically monitored bail, and the possibility of early release. The central issue was whether the district judge’s article 8 balance was legally wrong, despite having considered the relevant factors.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge had identified and weighed the relevant article 8 factors, including the appellant’s age, seriousness of the offending, United Kingdom ties, time subject to electronically monitored bail, the timing of prosecution and sentence, and possible early release.
2. An appellate court may, in principle, conclude that a properly conducted balance-sheet exercise produced a wrong overall evaluation. The court must, however, be persuaded that the decision was wrong, not merely that it would or might have struck the balance differently. This principle was drawn from Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin) and the appellate guidance in In re B (a Child) [2013] UKSC 33.
3. Such intervention in article 8 extradition cases is rare and is rarer still after Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz [2025] 1 WLR 2733, especially where the case depends substantially on private life. The appellant’s private and family life had not developed sufficiently to justify overturning the assessment.
4. The district judge was entitled to respect Poland’s Convention-compliant sentencing regime. A United Kingdom court should rarely second-guess the requesting state’s sentencing policies or substitute its own view of the proper sentence, applying Celinski v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 551. Currency conversion and comparison with domestic sentencing practice were of limited assistance.
5. Additional time spent on electronically monitored bail did not establish that the balance had changed. There was no fresh evidence of its impact, and such a restriction was not comparable to detention on remand. The possibility of early release carried little weight and was ultimately a matter for the Polish court.
6. The factual comparison with Deaconescu v Romania [2023] EWHC 870 (Admin) was not useful because of significant differences and the later decision in Andrysiewicz. The extradition decision therefore remained one which could not be characterised as wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The appeal was limited to the article 8 ground.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The district judge ordered extradition in a reserved judgment dated 15 November 2022.