Malgorzata Borkowska v Regional Court in Radom, Poland

On an appeal against an extradition order, the court reviews the District Judge’s decision and does not substitute its own view of the overall value judgment unless there is legal error, an unreasonable material finding, failure to consider a relevant factor, consideration of an irrelevant factor, or irrationality.

Under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, the overall passage of time must be assessed. Where the period includes deliberate flight from justice, reliance on delay is ordinarily barred save in exceptional circumstances. Later contact with the requesting authorities does not necessarily end fugitivity. Delay may instead be considered within the Article 8 proportionality assessment. Extradition will be displaced by Article 8 only in rare cases involving exceptionally severe consequences, particularly where the person has been a fugitive.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order dated 12 November 2024 directing her extradition to Poland to serve a custodial sentence imposed following a fraud conviction. Permission was granted on a section 14 ground under the Extradition Act 2003. A renewed section 21 and Article 8 ECHR ground was considered at a rolled-up hearing.

The District Judge found that the appellant had deliberately left Poland in 2011 knowing that her suspended sentence remained at risk of activation. She was found to have ceased being a fugitive in 2018 after re-engaging with the Polish authorities, although she remained unlawfully at large. The central issues were whether the passage of time made extradition unjust or oppressive under section 14 and whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with private and family life under Article 8.

1. The appeal was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused. The section 14 and Article 8 grounds both failed.
2. The appellate approach is one of review. The court should not interfere merely because it would attach different weight to factors or reach a different overall value judgment. Intervention requires legal misdirection, an unreasonable material finding, failure to consider a relevant matter, consideration of an irrelevant matter, or an irrational or perverse conclusion.
3. Section 14 requires assessment of the overall passage of time since the offence or, following conviction, since the person became unlawfully at large. Whether a person is unlawfully at large is an objective question. Knowledge or understanding is irrelevant to that status.
4. Flight from justice ordinarily prevents reliance on delay caused by that flight, save in the most exceptional circumstances. In a mixed period of fugitivity and non-fugitivity, the court must assess the overall period. The exceptional-circumstances inquiry permits consideration of the requested person’s conduct, the requesting authority’s conduct, changes in circumstances, and the balance between periods of fugitivity and non-fugitivity. The appellant’s later provision of contact details did not remove the effect of her earlier flight. The District Judge was entitled to find that no exceptional circumstances existed.
5. Where multiple extradition offences are involved, questions such as fugitivity require individual assessment, although the consequences may then be considered in the round.
6. Article 8 requires a structured proportionality assessment. The public interest in extradition is weighty and includes ensuring that sentences are served, honouring treaty obligations, and preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven. Delay may reduce that public interest but is rarely decisive. Family and health consequences must be exceptionally severe, particularly where the requested person has been a fugitive. The District Judge had adequately weighed the later administrative delay, the seriousness of the fraud and breach of court orders, fugitivity, family responsibilities and health concerns. The resulting hardship was capable of mitigation and did not outweigh the public interest.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order dismissed; application for permission to appeal refused.
• District Court: on 12 November 2024, District Judge Ciecióra ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.