Marcin Cwiklinski v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2901 (Admin)
Dagmara Milewska v Regional Court of Bialystok, Poland
30 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2760 (Admin)
High Court
A mother faces extradition for alleged involvement in illegal immigration. Her daughter has serious mental health problems. The judge initially ordered extradition but a higher court overturned this, saying the daughter's health concerns and the mother's willingness to cooperate were more important than the need to extradite her.
Key Facts
- •Dagmara Milewska (Appellant), a Polish national, appeals extradition to Poland for alleged involvement in organized crime related to illegal immigration from Belarus.
- •The arrest warrant alleges participation in an organized criminal group facilitating illegal immigration and organizing the crossing of at least 195 migrants.
- •The Appellant was arrested in the UK in July 2023 and opposed extradition on grounds including disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and lack of clear reasons for rejecting her cooperation offer.
- •The District Judge rejected all grounds, finding the public interest in extradition outweighed Article 8 concerns.
- •The appeal focuses on the disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights due to the impact on the Appellant's daughter, Wiktoria, who has severe mental health issues.
- •Fresh evidence included a letter indicating potential eviction and a CPT report raising concerns about Polish prison conditions.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise: Whether interference with private and family life is outweighed by public interest in extradition.
Re HH and PH –v- Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa: F-K (FC) –v- Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 25
Celinski approach: Judges should clearly set out an analysis of facts, listing 'pros' and 'cons' of extradition, followed by reasoned conclusions.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551
Appellate court review: Whether the lower court's determination was 'wrong,' not whether the appellate court would reach a different decision.
Love v USA [2018] 1 WLR 2889
Section 21A(1) Extradition Act 2003: The judge must decide whether extradition is compatible with Convention rights and whether it is disproportionate.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 21A(1)
Section 21B(3) Extradition Act 2003: Deals with requests for temporary transfer or interview arrangements.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 21B(3)
Section 27(2)-(4) Extradition Act 2003: Outlines conditions for allowing an appeal.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 27(2)-(4)
Outcomes
Appeal succeeds; extradition warrant discharged.
The District Judge's balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR was flawed. He downplayed the exceptionally severe impact of extradition on the Appellant's daughter's mental health, mischaracterized the seriousness of the offense, and insufficiently considered the Appellant's offer of cooperation.