Martin Henley has recently won two appeals in the High Court both on the grounds that the Appellant’s extradition would be disproportionate to their rights to a family life.
In Pakulski v Poland Mr Justice Mitting allowed the appeal on the basis that the Appellant, who was a recovering alcoholic had managed to rehabilitate himself over a period of 7 years in the UK by remaining sober, apart from two short relapses, rebuilding his life with his highly supportive wife and their 4 children. He had turned his life around by attending regular Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He had also built a successful construction business employing 4 people and was of good character in the UK. The offences were of some age and were all alcohol related. His version of the chaos in his life was corroborated by the medical notes from several admissions to psychiatric clinics in Poland for treatment for alcoholism. The judge found that there was a risk that the Appellant’s rehabilitation would be put in jeopardy if he were extradited to Poland.
In Wojick v Poland Mr Justice Cranston found that the Appellant’s extradition was disproportionate because of the lengthy delay in issuing the EAW. SOCA on 18 February 2011 was informed that an EAW had been issued they responded saying that Appellant had no connection with the UK. This was incorrect because a caution from 2006 was recorded on the police national computer. It was not until 2 years later that SOCA found an address for the Appellant. SOCA’s failure to find the entry on the PNC was described by the judge as “…a pigs ear…”.