Jerzy Suszynski v Regional Court in Gorzow (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 2899 (Admin)
Arkadiusz Rozwens v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland
21 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 624 (Admin)
High Court
A man in the UK is wanted in Poland for a burglary from many years ago. He argued it was unfair to extradite him now because of the delay and the impact on his life here. The court looked at the laws about extradition and decided that although some of the lower court judge's reasoning might have been slightly wrong, it didn't change the final decision. The man will be sent back to Poland.
Key Facts
- •Arkadiusz Rozwen, a Polish national, appeals his extradition to Poland for a 2005 burglary.
- •The burglary involved acting as a lookout during the theft of mobile phones.
- •The EAW was issued in 2019, with certification in 2022.
- •Rozwen has previous convictions in Poland and the UK.
- •The appeal raises grounds of oppression (Section 14), incompatibility with Article 8 ECHR (Section 21A(1)(a)), and disproportionality (Section 21A(1)(b)).
- •Rozwen claims strong UK ties, including employment and family connections, and his mother's illness.
- •The District Judge found Rozwen evasive and that his UK ties were weak.
- •Rozwen received further convictions after the extradition order.
Legal Principles
Extradition is barred if unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time (Section 14). Oppression relates to hardship to the accused from changed circumstances.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 14; *Kakis v Government of The Republic of Cyprus* [1978] 1 WLR 779
Extradition must be compatible with Convention rights (Section 21A(1)(a)). Article 8 rights are balanced using a 'balance sheet' approach.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 21A(1)(a); *Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Ors* [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Extradition is barred if disproportionate (Section 21A(1)(b)). Proportionality considers the seriousness of the offence, likely penalty, and less coercive alternatives.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 21A(1)(b); *Miraszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland* [2015] 1 WLR 3929
On appeal, the court only allows an appeal if the judge ought to have decided differently and that different decision would have led to discharge. This is an outcome-based test.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 27(3); *Celinski*, para 24
Domestic sentencing guidelines can be a 'useful cross-check' in assessing the seriousness of an extradition offence, but the court shouldn't substitute its own sentencing view for that of the requesting state.
*Smulczyk v Judicial Authority of Poland* [2022] EWHC 1697 (Admin); *HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa* [2012] UKSC 25
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's findings of fact were largely upheld. The court found no material errors in the judge's assessment of oppression, compatibility with Article 8, or proportionality. Even if some aspects of the judge's assessment were flawed, they did not change the ultimate outcome.