Leszek Bialy v Regional Court of Ostroleka, Poland
[2024] EWHC 232 (Admin)
Damian Paczkowski v Regoinal Court of Szczecin, Poland
19 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1489 (Admin)
High Court
Someone is fighting extradition to Poland for drug smuggling. They say the UK should handle it because they live here and much of the crime happened here. A judge originally agreed in part but new information showed the crime was much bigger and spread across Europe, making Poland a more sensible place for the trial. So, the judge's decision to send them to Poland stood.
Key Facts
- •Damian Paczkowski (Appellant) appeals extradition to Poland for drug trafficking offenses.
- •The sole ground of appeal is the forum bar under s.19B Extradition Act 2003.
- •Offenses involve a pan-European drug trafficking conspiracy.
- •Appellant has strong UK ties but is a Polish national.
- •Poland's extraterritorial jurisdiction and the pursuit of co-conspirators are key arguments.
- •Fresh evidence (Forum SI) was submitted post-judgment, raising admissibility issues.
- •The case involved approximately 12,000 pages of evidence from multiple countries.
Legal Principles
Forum bar prevents extradition if not in the interests of justice and substantial relevant activity occurred in the UK.
s.19B Extradition Act 2003
Interests of justice factors include harm location, victim interests, prosecutor's belief, evidence availability, delay, prosecution desirability/practicability, and defendant's UK connections.
s.19B(3) Extradition Act 2003
On appeal, interference with a district judge's value judgment is limited to misconstruing statute, ignoring specified matters, considering extraneous matters, or irrationality.
Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), Shaw v USA [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin)
Admission of fresh evidence by a respondent supporting a lower court's decision is less restrictive than for an appellant; the 'decisiveness' test doesn't apply.
FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin), Stanciu v Armenia [2022] EWHC 3368 (Admin)
CPR 50.17(1) mandates public hearings unless exceptions apply; case management decisions are not final on admissibility of evidence.
CPR 50.17(1), CPR 50.17(1)(c)(i)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's assessment of the interests of justice factors, considering the fresh evidence, was not wrong. The pan-European nature of the conspiracy, evidence location, potential delays in UK prosecution, and the fact that co-conspirators are in Poland outweighed the appellant's strong UK ties.
Respondent's application to admit fresh evidence (Forum SI) granted.
The court had jurisdiction to reconsider the application despite a prior refusal. The Forum SI clarified factual issues and supported the judge's findings; the appellant suffered no significant prejudice.