Key Facts
- •Appellant seeks permission to appeal extradition order based on Article 8 ECHR (right to family and private life) and Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Extradition to Poland for robbery convictions; 1 year, 10 months, and 29 days remain to be served.
- •Appellant argues extradition is disproportionate due to possibility of early release under Article 77 of the Polish Penal Code (potentially serving only 9.5 months).
- •Conflicting case law exists on considering the likelihood of early release under Polish law in extradition cases.
- •Appellant requests a stay pending the outcome of *Tujek v Regional Court in Szczecin, Poland*.
- •Appellant was granted conditional bail.
Legal Principles
Proportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights in extradition cases.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 21; Article 8 ECHR
Consideration of Polish early release provisions (Article 77 of the Polish Penal Code) in Article 8 proportionality assessment.
Dobrowolski v District Court in Bydgoszcz, Poland [2023] EWHC 763; Dablewski v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland [2024] EWHC 957 (Admin); Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2024] EWHC 1399 (Admin); Tujek v Regional Court in Szczecin, Poland (AC-2024-LON-001555)
Court's power to stay extradition appeals pending lead cases.
Crim PR 50.18(1); Crim PR 3.5(2)(f) and (g); Czach v Poland [2016] EWHC 1993 (Admin); AB (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 921
Outcomes
Application for a stay granted.
The court found that the outcome of *Tujek* could be decisive in the appellant's case, despite the initial judge's consideration of early release. While the appellant is on bail and has a longer period to serve before early release consideration, the court felt it was reasonably arguable that the initial judge did not fully apply the most favorable approach to early release, potentially affecting the Article 8 assessment.