Patryk Wozniak v The Circuit Court in Warsaw (Poland)

In an accusation-warrant extradition appeal, the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the likely penalty are distinct proportionality matters. Seriousness may include the nature and quality of the acts, culpability, harm to the victim and wider community impact. Motor insurance fraud is not victimless and may be regarded as serious even where the claim fails and the financial loss is avoided. A custodial sentence need not be likely before extradition can remain proportionate.

For Article 8, the court must balance the interference with private and family life against the strong public interest in extradition. Delay may reduce that public interest and increase the interference, but delay after the requested person knowingly evades the criminal process carries limited weight. Very strong counterbalancing factors are ordinarily required where the person is a fugitive.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Sternberg on 2 January 2024 directing his extradition to Poland under an accusation warrant concerning alleged attempted motor insurance fraud in 2014. Permission to appeal was granted on the combined Article 8 and statutory proportionality ground.

The appellant argued that extradition was disproportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, having regard to the modest alleged loss, delay, his established life in the United Kingdom and the likelihood of a non-custodial sentence. He also argued that extradition would breach Article 8. The central issues were whether the District Judge had wrongly assessed seriousness and likely penalty, and whether the overall balancing exercises produced legally erroneous conclusions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court held that the District Judge was entitled to conclude that extradition was not disproportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Seriousness of the alleged conduct and likely penalty under section 21A(3)(a) and (b) are distinct, although overlapping, considerations. Seriousness is assessed principally by reference to the nature and quality of the acts, the requested person’s culpability and the harm caused to the victim. Wider community impact may also be relevant.
3. The alleged conduct involved personal gain, planning, participation with another person and a false statement supporting a fictitious collision. The appellant therefore had a significant rather than peripheral role. Motor insurance fraud has wider effects, including increased premiums and additional scrutiny of honest claims. The fact that the claim was unsuccessful did not materially distinguish the conduct.
4. Applying domestic sentencing practice, the offending fell within medium culpability. Although the court did not conclude that custody was likely, it was entitled to find that the Polish authorities may impose a custodial sentence. The less-coercive-measures factor was neutral. The offence was not a minor financial offence within the relevant Practice Direction because the sum was not small and the indirect harm was more than low.
5. The Article 8 balancing exercise was also lawful. The delay before the allegation came to light in Poland counted in the appellant’s favour, but the period after he knowingly failed to attend the summons could not assist him because he was a fugitive. His relationship, work, study and settled status were considered, but the relationship arose after he had evaded the summons. There were no dependants or health issues, and the consequences of extradition were not exceptionally severe. The District Judge’s overall evaluation was not wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: extradition hearing held on 2 January 2024; District Judge Sternberg ordered extradition to Poland.
• Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Mould J on 15 April 2024 and granted on renewal by Hill J on 23 May 2024.