Katarzyna Monika Lasek v The Circuit Court of Tarnobrzeg (Poland)

An Article 8 ECHR challenge to extradition will generally succeed only where the impact on family life is exceptionally severe. Whether that threshold is met is fact-specific. An appellate court should not substitute its own assessment for an experienced extradition judge’s individualised balancing exercise unless the decision was wrong in the relevant sense.

A report under section 7 of the Children Act 1989 is discretionary and is not required in every case. In a conviction-warrant case, the requesting state’s assessment of seriousness is reflected in the sentence imposed, including the importance attached to compliance with conditional release. Delay may be relevant, but its omission will not necessarily invalidate the decision where the requested person is a fugitive.

The appellant challenged an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring her surrender to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence for two fraud offences. The District Judge ordered extradition on 2 July 2024, finding that the appellant was a fugitive and that extradition would not disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, her partner and their young son.

The appeal under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 relied on the appellant’s role as the child’s main carer, her partner’s ill health, the age and limited value of the offences, and delay. The central issues were whether further evidence, including a social-services report, was required and whether the District Judge’s proportionality assessment was legally flawed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not overcome the two substantial hurdles applicable to Article 8 extradition appeals.
2. First, following Andrysziewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23, even where family life is relied upon, an Article 8 defence ordinarily has prospects of success only where the impact on family life is exceptionally severe.
3. Secondly, the Article 8 balancing exercise is fact-specific. The Administrative Court should not interfere with an experienced extradition judge’s individualised assessment unless the decision was wrong in the relevant appellate sense. The court was not entitled to undertake a fresh evaluation of the evidence.
4. The District Judge was entitled to rely on her finding that the appellant’s mother and other family members were willing and able to assist with the child’s care. Section 7 of the Children Act 1989 confers a power, not a duty, to obtain a social-services report. Neither A&B v Hungary [2013] EWHC 3132 (Admin) nor Bakai v Slovakia [2024] EWHC 1768 (Admin) required such a report on the facts of every case.
5. The Criminal Practice Direction provision relied upon by the appellant applied on its face to cases under section 21A, where the requested person had not been convicted. This was a conviction-warrant case. The seriousness of the conduct had already been reflected in the Polish sentence, and compliance with conditional release was also material. The District Judge’s description of the offences as not the most serious was therefore unobjectionable.
6. Although there had been delay after the original offending, the appellant breached her release conditions and fled Poland in 2015. Given the finding that she was a fugitive, the omission to analyse delay separately did not demonstrate an error of approach. The District Judge was also entitled to conclude that the case was not out of the ordinary.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Pilling ordered the appellant’s extradition on 2 July 2024.
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal was granted on 18 November 2024. The appeal was dismissed.