Jacek Smolarek v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2860 (Admin)
Damian Baciejowski v District Court in Koszalin, Poland
31 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 764 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Poland for crimes he committed 11 years ago. He argues it's unfair to extradite him now because of the delay. The court says that while there were delays, it's still important to bring him to justice for the serious crimes he's accused of, and that he wasn't tricked into thinking he wouldn't be prosecuted. He has to go back to Poland for trial.
Key Facts
- •Damian Baciejowski (Appellant) is wanted for extradition to Poland for two alleged offences: bank loan fraud (£377 equivalent) in May 2011 and a violent assault in October 2011.
- •An Extradition Arrest Warrant (ExAW) was issued in July 2019 and certified in May 2021. Baciejowski was arrested in September 2021.
- •Baciejowski was previously extradited to Poland from Germany in 2013 for unrelated offences.
- •Baciejowski claims extradition is unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time and incompatible with Article 8 ECHR.
- •The lower court ordered extradition, rejecting Baciejowski's arguments.
Legal Principles
Whether extradition would be 'unjust or oppressive' due to passage of time (Section 14, Extradition Act 2003).
Extradition Act 2003
Whether extradition would be incompatible with Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) (Section 21A(1)(b), Extradition Act 2003).
Extradition Act 2003 and ECHR
Statutory proportionality test in extradition cases (Section 21A(1)(b), Extradition Act 2003).
Extradition Act 2003
The speciality rule in extradition, preventing prosecution for offences other than those for which a person was extradited, with exceptions.
Article 27, EU Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA; Extradition Act 2003; Warner v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2022] UKPC 43
Assessment of fugitivity in extradition cases; impact on passage of time arguments.
Wisniewski v Poland [2016] EWHC 386 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; extradition ordered.
The court found that while there were delays and missed opportunities, these did not meet the high thresholds for 'unjust' or 'oppressive' extradition under Section 14. The Article 8 claim failed because the public interest in extradition outweighed Baciejowski's private and family life interests.