Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition to Poland for cheque forgery (2003)
- •Appellant (Owczarek) was a fugitive, absconding after a suspended sentence was activated.
- •Offence involved forging mother's signature for approximately £80.
- •Appellant did not attend the extradition hearing in 2015.
- •Appellant arrested in 2022 for failing to attend the 2015 hearing.
- •Appellant argues extradition is disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR.
- •Appellant claims settled private life in the UK since 2005.
- •Nearly 20 years had passed since the offence.
Legal Principles
Proportionality under Article 8 ECHR regarding extradition.
European Convention on Human Rights
Extradition Act 2003, Part 1
Extradition Act 2003
Delay bar in s 14 of the EA 2003
Extradition Act 2003
Relevant case law on Article 8 and extradition: Norris v Government of the USA (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487; H(H) v Italy [2013] 1 AC 338; Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551; FK (case decided with H(H)); Gurskis v Latvian Judicial Authority [2022] 4 WLR 82; Hojden v District Court [2022] EWHC 2725 (Admin); Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad [2022] EWHC 1507 (Admin)
Case Law
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The district judge's decision was not wrong. The appellant's absconding and lack of evidence regarding the impact of extradition prevented a finding of disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights. The age of the offence was considered, but weighed against the appellant's prolonged fugitivity.