Ireneusz Teodor Polom v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz (Poland)
[2024] EWHC 2708 (Admin)
Grzegorz Pabian v Circuit Court in Warszawa, Poland
25 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2431 (Admin)
High Court
A man is fighting extradition to Poland for old crimes. He says going back would hurt his mental health and that there were big delays in the case. The court looked at similar cases and said that while the delays matter, they don't outweigh the importance of sending him back to serve his sentence. So, he has to go back to Poland.
Key Facts
- •Grzegorz Pabian appeals extradition to Poland based on two European Arrest Warrants from 2018.
- •Warrants relate to fraud and theft offenses committed in Poland between 2011 and 2012.
- •Pabian argues extradition would be unjust/oppressive (s.25 Extradition Act 2003) and violate Article 8 ECHR due to mental health.
- •Significant delays occurred between offenses, warrant issuance, and certification.
- •Pabian has a history of mental illness, including depression and ADHD.
- •Pabian has established a stable life in the UK with access to healthcare.
- •The District Judge dismissed the appeal, finding the threshold for oppression not met and Article 8 considerations outweighed by public interest in extradition.
Legal Principles
Extradition must not be unjust or oppressive (s.25 Extradition Act 2003). The threshold for oppression is high.
Extradition Act 2003, s.25
Extradition must be compatible with Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) (s.21 Extradition Act 2003). A balancing exercise is required, considering factors for and against extradition.
Article 8 ECHR, s.21 Extradition Act 2003, HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Delay in extradition proceedings can be a relevant factor under Article 8, even if the appellant is a fugitive, particularly if they have established a new life. However, a fugitive cannot solely rely on self-caused delay.
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, Juszczak v Poland [2013] EWHC 526 (Admin), Tomasziewicz v Poland [2013] EWHC 3670 (Admin), RT v Poland [2017] EWHC 1978 (Admin), Wanagiel v Poland [2018] EWHC 3370 (Admin)
The requesting state and the executing state must take reasonable steps in executing an EAW. However, this must be balanced against their resource constraints and the conduct of the fugitive.
Oreszczynski v Poland [2014] EWHC 4346 (Admin), Wolack v Poland [2014] EWHC 2278 (Admin), Zimackis v Latvia [2017] EWHC 315 (Admin), Gomez v Trinidad & Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that despite the unexplained delay, extradition was not barred under s.25 or s.21. The balancing exercise under Article 8 considered the delay, Pabian's mental health, his established life in the UK, and the public interest in extradition. The court concluded the public interest outweighed the Article 8 considerations.