R v Mohammed Saddam Hussain & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1100
Leszek Robert Gomulka v Poland (No 2)
1 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1023 (Admin)
High Court
Someone lost an extradition case and tried to appeal, claiming important legal points were missed. The judge said no, the arguments were about the facts of the case, not new laws, and refused the appeal.
Key Facts
- •Appellant applied for certification of a point of law of general public importance and for leave to appeal under s.32(4)(a) and (b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •The application followed a judgment on 5 March 2024 ([2024] EWHC 460 (Admin)).
- •Three questions were raised by the Appellant.
- •The case concerned an extradition request from Poland.
Legal Principles
Requirements for certifying a point of law of general public importance under s.32(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Extradition Act 2003, s.32(4)
The test for 'oppressive' extradition under Section 14 of the 2003 Act.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 14
Article 8 ECHR rights relating to private life of long-term settled migrants.
Article 8 ECHR
Consideration of the seriousness of an offence in extradition proceedings, in relation to the sentence given.
Not explicitly stated but implied in the judgment
Outcomes
Application to certify points of law refused.
The questions raised were not points of law involved in the original decision. The judge found that the appellant's arguments related to factual matters and the application of existing legal principles to the specific facts, rather than novel points of law.
Application for leave to appeal refused.
This followed directly from the refusal to certify a point of law of general public importance.
Similar Cases
Norbert Miernik v Sad Okregowy III Criminal Division In Kielce, Poland
[2024] EWHC 1457 (Admin)
Tomasz Wisniewski v Regional Court of Torun, Poland
[2024] EWHC 1461 (Admin)
Jerzy Suszynski v Regional Court in Gorzow (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 2899 (Admin)
Jacek Smolarek v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2860 (Admin)