Przemyslaw Dziaduch v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2900 (Admin)
Leszek Robert Gomulka v Poland
5 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 460 (Admin)
High Court
A man fled Poland after committing fraud years ago. He built a life in the UK. Poland wants him back. Even though a lot of time passed, a UK court ruled he must go back to Poland because he ran away and there's no special reason to let him stay.
Key Facts
- •Leszek Robert Gomulka (Appellant), aged 46, was wanted for extradition to Poland.
- •The extradition request was based on a conviction warrant for four fraud offenses (forged documents to obtain loans, forging a signature) committed between 2002 and 2003, with a total value of approximately £2,650.
- •Gomulka was also wanted on two accusation warrants for handling stolen property and fraud, but the respondent conceded these were unjust and oppressive due to the passage of time.
- •Gomulka was convicted in Poland in 2005 and sentenced to a suspended two-year prison term, which was later activated due to a subsequent offense.
- •Gomulka fled to the UK in 2007 and has lived and worked openly there since.
- •The conviction warrant was issued in 2016, and the extradition order was made in 2022.
Legal Principles
Delay caused by the accused's own actions (fugitivity) cannot generally be relied upon as grounds for finding extradition unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
Kakis v Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779
Article 8 ECHR protects both family and private life. Extradition can be a disproportionate interference with private life, but the court must balance this against the public interest in extradition.
Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
In assessing Article 8 proportionality, courts consider the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the private life, the passage of time (including culpable delay), and the impact of extradition on the ability to return to the UK.
Various cases cited, including HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, Oreszczynsi v Poland [2014] EWHC 4346 (Admin), Geleziunas v Lithuania [2016] EWHC 16 (Admin), Cieczka v Poland [2016] EWHC 3399 (Admin), Pink v Poland [2021] EWHC 1238 (Admin), and Gurskis v Latvia [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found that the Judge correctly applied the law. While acknowledging the passage of time and the impact on Gomulka's private life in the UK, the court emphasized his fugitivity and the lack of exceptional circumstances to warrant a finding of injustice or oppression under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. The court also found that the interference with Gomulka’s Article 8 rights was proportionate to the public interest in extradition.