Kamil Drzewiecki v Polish Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 1756 (Admin)
Gurpreet Singh v Swedish Economic Crime Authority
16 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1183 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Sweden for tax evasion. His family says his extradition would be bad for them. A judge agreed there would be some problems, but not so many that it should stop his extradition to Sweden to face the charges. The judge also didn't fully believe the family's claims about how much they needed him.
Key Facts
- •Gurpreet Singh, aged 39, is wanted for extradition to Sweden for alleged tax offences (incorrect accounting and tax returns) between 2017-2019 involving approximately £100,000.
- •Extradition was ordered by District Judge Cieciora on August 25, 2023.
- •Singh's family (wife, two young children, grandmother, and brother) reside in the UK and claim their Article 8 rights (private and family life) would be disproportionately interfered with by his extradition.
- •The Judge found that Singh's family members exaggerated their reliance on him and their health difficulties to oppose extradition.
- •Dr. Crumpton's report, based on online interviews and assessments, concluded the children would suffer severe emotional harm if Singh were extradited.
- •Fresh evidence, including a PIP decision for the grandmother and updates on the wife's health, was presented by the Appellant's counsel.
- •The Judge accepted some family health issues but concluded there was sufficient support to mitigate any harm from extradition.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Proportionality in extradition cases; balancing the public interest in extradition against the impact on the individual's family.
UK Extradition Law
Assessment of evidence; credibility of witnesses and the weight given to expert evidence.
Evidence Law
Outcomes
The appeal against the extradition order was refused.
The Judge's findings of exaggeration in the family's evidence, limitations of Dr. Crumpton's report, and the existence of support services to mitigate the harm from extradition were upheld. The public interest in extradition outweighed the Article 8 concerns.