Lukasz Sroczynski v Polish Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 2380 (Admin)
Kamil Szubert v Polish Judicial Authority
14 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1140 (Admin)
High Court
A man wanted in Poland for serious drug crimes appealed his extradition to the UK. The judge ruled against him, saying the importance of sending him back to Poland to serve his sentence outweighs the effect on his family. Even though his wife's extradition was cancelled, his case was still strong enough to justify sending him back.
Key Facts
- •Kamil Szubert (Appellant), aged 47, is wanted for extradition to Poland to serve a remaining 7 years 4 months 27 days of a 9-year 6-month sentence for drug trafficking and other offenses.
- •The Appellant fled Poland in 2017, aware of the proceedings against him.
- •The Appellant's wife was also facing extradition proceedings, relating to a 3-year 2-month sentence for drug supply and theft.
- •A social worker's report highlighted the risk of their 9-year-old daughter being taken into care if both parents were extradited.
- •The wife's extradition was discharged due to disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights of the mother and daughter.
- •The Appellant argued that his extradition would disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of himself, his wife, and his daughter.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
ECHR
Extradition Act 2003, s. 14 (grounds for refusing extradition)
Extradition Act 2003
Fugitivity as a factor against the s.14 ground of resistance based on passage of time
Case Law (implied)
Proportionality test in extradition cases, balancing public interest in extradition against Article 8 rights
Case Law (implied)
Relevant case law: Morawski v Poland [2020] EWHC 228 (Admin)
Morawski v Poland [2020] EWHC 228 (Admin)
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25 (considering parents' cases together)
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The judge found no reasonably arguable basis for claiming disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights, given the strong public interest in extradition, the Appellant's serious crimes, and the joint caring responsibilities of the parents.
Adjournment refused.
The judge considered the wife's extradition outcome (discharged) and the potential for appeal, concluding that the Appellant's case was clear-cut and didn't require adjournment.
Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
The judge deemed the evidence incapable of being decisive.