Rafal Marcin Kubik v Polish Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 2772 (Admin)
Jakub Kowalewski v Polish Judicial Authority
21 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2954 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Poland for old crimes. A UK court decided to send him back but wants to check some new information from Poland first about whether the crimes are as serious as originally thought. The court also decided his right to family life was not a strong enough reason to stop the extradition.
Key Facts
- •Jakub Kowalewski, a 36-year-old Polish national, is wanted for extradition to Poland for offences committed between 2004 and 2005.
- •He was convicted in absentia in Poland and given a 4-year sentence in 2020, which he did not serve.
- •He was arrested in the UK in March 2023 and a District Judge ordered his extradition in June 2023.
- •Kowalewski appeals, raising new arguments based on subsequent Polish court decisions that potentially alter the sentence and the offences he is wanted for.
- •The appeal concerns two issues: new Polish court decisions potentially constituting a material change in circumstances, and an Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) argument.
Legal Principles
Extradition Act 2003 s.2 particularisation argument and abuse of process
Zakrzewski v Poland [2013] UKSC 2 [2013] 1 WLR 324
Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life)
ECHR
Material change in circumstances affecting extradition
Case law implied
The role of the executing court in seeking further information in extradition cases
Zakrzewski v Poland [2013] UKSC 2 [2013] 1 WLR 324, para 10
Alexander v France [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin) §§60-61, after Goluchowski v Poland [2016] UKSC 36 [2016] 1 WLR 2665 relating to s.2 particularisation
Alexander v France [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin) and Goluchowski v Poland [2016] UKSC 36
Outcomes
Permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground refused.
Strong public interest in extradition outweighs Article 8 considerations, even with a reduced sentence and fewer offences.
Applications regarding new Polish court decisions adjourned to a rolled-up hearing.
Uncertainty about the authenticity and impact of the new evidence requires further information from the respondent before proceeding.
Respondent ordered to provide further information on the authenticity of Polish court decisions and the status of the extradition warrant.
To clarify the situation before a decision on the appeal can be made.