Balancing the Interference with Private and Family Life of the Person whose Extradition is Sought with the Public Interest in Extradition
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018315605228 |
| Date | 01 October 2015 |
| Published date | 01 October 2015 |
| Author | Gemma Davies |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2015, Vol. 79(5) 309–316
Divisional Court
ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315605228
clj.sagepub.com
Balancing the Interference with Private and Family Life of the Person whose
Extradition is Sought with the Public Interest in Extradition: Has the Pendulum Swung
Too Far?
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and Others [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Keywords
European Arrest Warrant, extradition, European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8,
right to private and family life
Facts
This case combined six appeals of extradition hearings that had been held under Part 1 of the Extradition
Act 2003. In all of the hearings the courts at first instance had heard Article 8 of the European Conven-
tion on Human Rights arguments, taken different factors into account, and made decisions based on pro-
portionality. The issue on appeal was whether the district judge had correctly applied his or her
discretion in each case. The facts of the cases were as follows.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski
Celinski was subject to two accusation European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) and one conviction EAW
covering offending between 2008 and 2011, when he was between 16 and 19 years old. The two accusa-
tion EAWs were heard by a different judge to the conviction EAW. The first two EAWs were issued for
the supply of a relatively small number of ecstasy pills. At the hearing the district judge heard evidence
from the defendant and his mother to the effect that personal tragedies had led him to drugs and offend-
ing but that he had now turned his life around and was a hard-working member of society. The judge took
into account Celinski’s age at the time of the offences and the effect that his imprisonment in Poland
would have on him. The judge held that it would be disproportionate to order Celinski’s extradition
in all the circumstances.
Slovakian Judicial Authority v Cambal
Cambal had been convicted in his absence of offences relating to the possession of drugs and theft and
sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment in July 2006. He claimed to have been illegally traf-
ficked in May 2005. The judge, after hearing evidence, found that Cambal had not been trafficked
Corresponding author:
Gemma Davies, UK.
Email: gemma.davies@northumbria.ac.uk
310
The Journal of Criminal Law 79(5)
despite a finding of the UK Human Trafficking Centre Competent Authority (UKHTC) that he was a
victim of trafficking. However, taking into account the fact that Cambal’s rehabilitation from many
years of addiction to class A drugs would likely be squandered if he were returned to Poland, and that
he would have been unlikely to have received a custodial sentence if the offence had been committed in
the UK, the extradition was barred and the order discharged.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Nida
Nida was wanted in Poland to serve his sentence for an attempted street robbery. He was given a sus-
pended sentence but left Poland during the suspension period. The district judge concluded that Nida
came nowhere near the high threshold required to satisfy an Article 8 argument.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Ciemiega
A conviction EAW had been issued for the theft of two mobile phones from a shop. Ciemiega was given
a suspended sentence during which he absconded to the UK. After hearing evidence, the district judge
concluded that the defendant’s extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8
rights, taking into account the fact that he was a deliberate fugitive, his partner could look after his chil-
dren, the sentence to be served was relatively short, and there was a weighty public interest in
extradition.
R (Piotr Inglot) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Westminster
Magistrates Court
Ingot was a Polish national whose extradition was sought from the Isle of Man (which is not part of the UK
for the purposes of membership of the EU). He had been convicted...
To continue reading
Request your trial