Piotr Hodurek v Polish Judicial Authority

On an appeal against an extradition order, the appellate court asks whether the district judge’s proportionality decision was wrong, while ordinarily respecting findings of fact. Article 8 will defeat extradition only rarely. Where family life is relied upon, the impact must generally be exceptionally severe to outweigh the strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and avoiding the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven for fugitives. Delay may affect the weight given to extradition or to the interference with private and family life, but fugitivity substantially reduces its significance. Fresh evidence of changed circumstances must be evaluated together with the original evidence, and the appellate court must conduct the overall proportionality assessment. Considerable hardship and disruption do not necessarily amount to exceptional severity where appropriate medical, social-care, welfare and informal support remain available.

This was an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order dated 24 April 2023 requiring the appellant’s extradition to Poland to serve two years and six months’ imprisonment for 12 theft offences. The District Judge rejected an oppression-by-delay argument under section 14 and concluded that extradition was compatible with article 8 of the ECHR under section 21.

Permission to appeal was initially refused but later granted. The appeal was stayed pending Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland. The appellant relied on alleged errors in the article 8 assessment and fresh evidence concerning the deterioration of his partner’s health and her reliance on him as a carer. The central issue was whether the District Judge’s conclusion that extradition was proportionate was wrong.

Appeal dismissed. The court held as follows:

1. Under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal could succeed only if the District Judge ought to have decided a question differently and would then have been required to order discharge, or if fresh evidence or a new issue would have produced that result.
2. The District Judge applied the correct approach under Norris v United States of America, H(H) v Italy, Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski and Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland. Cases in which article 8 defeats extradition are rare. Family-life interference must be exceptionally severe before it can outweigh the public interest in extradition.
3. The appellate court considered the fresh evidence with the evidence before the District Judge. The partner suffered MS, significant mobility impairment and back pain, required daily assistance and would lose the appellant’s care, emotional support and financial contribution. Those matters amounted to considerable hardship and carried significant weight.
4. Nevertheless, the partner retained access to personal independence payments, NHS treatment, social-care and charitable support, friends and parental emotional support. The court was unable to find that the impact of extradition would be exceptionally severe. The District Judge was entitled to give delay relatively little weight because the appellant had left Poland after conviction and sentence intending to evade imprisonment. His private life in the United Kingdom was correspondingly tenuous.
5. The offending was a persistent course of dishonesty and the sentence was substantial. The public interest in returning a fugitive to serve it, and in maintaining confidence in extradition arrangements, remained weighty. The electronic curfew did not materially affect the balance. The District Judge’s conclusion remained sound, and the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order dated 24 April 2023 was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The appellant was ordered to be extradited to Poland pursuant to section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.