A man is wanted in Poland for a robbery he committed years ago. He ran away to the UK and had a family. A judge said he should be sent back to Poland to serve his sentence. This court agreed, even though the man's family will suffer, because he broke the law and fled.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (35) wanted for extradition to Poland for attempted robbery (2010), sentenced to 2 years suspended, activated in 2017.
- •Appellant fled to UK in late 2016/early 2017 after committing further offenses in Poland.
- •Appellant has a partner and four children (aged 15, 10, 4, and 17 months at the time of the hearing, and a fifth child born in December 2022).
- •Child "N" has a history of kidney cancer requiring significant medical attention.
- •Fresh evidence included updated medical records for "N", and statements from the Appellant's partner.
- •The Appellant argues that the Judge erred in finding him a fugitive and in finding extradition compatible with Article 8 rights.
Legal Principles
Fugitivity in extradition cases.
Case law (implied)
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) in extradition cases.
Article 8 ECHR
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The Judge's finding of fugitivity was unassailable; the Appellant fled Poland after committing further offences, knowing his suspended sentence could be activated. The Article 8 arguments lacked realistic prospect of success, even considering the fresh evidence. The public interest in extradition outweighed the Article 8 considerations.
Permission to rely on fresh evidence refused.
The fresh evidence was not arguably capable of being decisive in overturning the Judge's decision.