Regional Court in Lodz (Poland) v Mateusz Kazimerz Swiatek
[2022] EWHC 3155 (Admin)
Dariusz Andrzej Oniszk v Polish Judicial Authority
14 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 535 (Admin)
High Court
A man was accused of fraud in Poland but lived in the UK for many years without hearing anything from the Polish authorities. Because of the long delay, the court said it would be unfair and oppressive to send him back to Poland to face trial now.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition to Poland from the UK.
- •Appellant accused of four alleged offences of fraud between 2003-2005, totaling approximately £635,209.
- •Appellant lived openly in the UK since 2008, building a life with his partner and daughter.
- •Significant delay (11-13 years) between alleged offences and decision to prosecute.
- •Further delay in issuing the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
- •Appellant was interviewed as a witness in 2006 and 2007 but not informed he was a suspect.
- •Appellant claims a false sense of security due to the delay.
Legal Principles
Extradition is barred under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 if it would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time.
Extradition Act 2003, section 14
'Unjust' focuses on prejudice to the accused during trial; 'oppressive' focuses on hardship due to changed circumstances.
Kakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779
The test for oppression is not easily satisfied; more than mere hardship must be shown. The gravity of the charges is relevant.
Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
Culpable delay by the requesting state, in borderline cases, may tip the balance towards finding oppression.
Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
A false sense of security engendered by the passage of time is a relevant and potentially important consideration.
Kakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779; Pillar-Neumann v Public Prosecutor's Office of Klagenfurt [2017] EWHC 3371 (Admin); Eason v Government of The United States of America [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin)
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) balancing exercise.
Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9; HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25; Celinski v Polish Judicial Authority [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Judge failed to consider the appellant's false sense of security created by the extremely lengthy and culpable delay by the Polish authorities. This delay, coupled with the appellant's changed circumstances (life in the UK with family), rendered extradition oppressive under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Appellant discharged.
The court found the extradition to be oppressive due to the passage of time and the appellant's resulting false sense of security. Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider the Article 8 argument.