Marcin Cwiklinski v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2901 (Admin)
Lukasz Adrian Dobrowolski v District Court in Bydgoszcz, Poland
31 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 763 (Admin)
High Court
A man was wanted in Poland for crimes he committed years ago. He fled to the UK. A judge decided that because he's served most of his sentence already, is doing better mentally, is likely to get out early in Poland anyway, and there were long delays in getting him back, it's unfair to send him back to Poland to serve the rest of his time.
Key Facts
- •Extradition appeal concerning Lukas Adrian Dobrowolski, wanted in Poland for four burglaries, assault on police officers, and attempted burglary committed in 2012-2013.
- •Appellant was 23 at the time of the offences and 33 at the time of the appeal.
- •Sentenced to 34 months imprisonment in Poland in 2014, but fled to the UK.
- •Appellant has a history of mental health issues, including a serious head injury in 2019, and concerns regarding suicide risk.
- •The appeal focuses on Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life), considering time served on remand, prospect of discretionary early release in Poland, and the passage of time.
- •At the time of the appeal, the appellant had served over 30 months of qualifying remand, leaving less than 4 months of the sentence to serve.
- •Updated psychiatric reports indicate a 'near full recovery' from the head injury and 'mild' depressive symptoms, with a 'low to moderate' suicide risk, which could increase with extradition.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR balance sheet exercise: weighing public interest in extradition against the interference with private and family life.
Extradition Act 2003, section 21(1)
Proportionality of extradition under Article 8 ECHR considering all available evidence.
Extradition Act 2003, section 27(4)(a)
The court does not decide on early release or whether sufficient punishment has been served; these are matters for the Polish authorities.
Various case law
Judicial notice of foreign law: reliance on information about the operation of Polish early release provisions from previous judgments is permissible, although caution is needed.
Various case law including Jankowski v Poland [2016] EWHC 3792 (Admin) and Stanciu v Armenia [2022] EWHC 3368 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; Appellant discharged.
The cumulative effect of four key factors (mental health, qualifying remand served, prospect of early release in Poland, and unexplained delay in extradition proceedings) outweighs the public interest in extradition.