Damian Dablewski v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland
[2024] EWHC 957 (Admin)
Maciej Haczelski v Poland
5 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 459 (Admin)
High Court
A man fled to the UK years ago after breaking the law in Poland. Poland wants him back to serve his sentence. A court in the UK had to decide if sending him back was fair, considering his family life in the UK, especially his young daughter. The UK court decided that even though it's tough on his family, it's more important that he goes back to Poland to serve his time. The man broke the law, and the court thought it's still important that he serves the punishment, even after all these years.
Key Facts
- •Maciej Haczelski, aged 38, is wanted for extradition to Poland to serve a two-year sentence (less one day) for offences committed in 2005 (picking a lock and stealing a bag) and 2004 (attempted burglary).
- •The suspended sentence was activated in 2013 after Haczelski fled to the UK in 2006.
- •Haczelski has lived in the UK since 2006 without further offenses and has established strong family ties, including recently re-established contact with his 8-year-old daughter.
- •New evidence, including a Cafcass report and a report from an independent parenting assessor, highlights the impact of extradition on Haczelski's daughter.
- •The court considered the proportionality of extradition under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Legal Principles
Extradition must be compatible with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, including Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The court must balance the public interest in extradition against the impact on the individual's and their family's rights.
Extradition Act 2003, sections 21 and 21A; Human Rights Act 1998; HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25
In Article 8 cases, a holistic evaluation of all factors weighing for and against extradition is required.
Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
The weight to be attached to the public interest in extradition varies according to the nature and seriousness of the crime, the age of the offender at the time of the offense, and the passage of time since the crime.
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25
Expert evidence is admissible if it is necessary, the witness is qualified and impartial, and there is a reliable body of knowledge to support it. Judges, unlike juries, are less likely to be unduly influenced by expert evidence.
Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6; CrimPR 19
While the best interests of the child are a primary consideration under Article 8 and Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), they are not a decisive bar to extradition.
R (Abdollahi) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 366; CRC Article 3(1); Article 9
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court, while considering the new evidence and re-evaluating the Article 8 balance afresh, found that the public interest in extradition decisively outweighs the detrimental impact on Haczelski's family. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the passage of time, Haczelski's subsequent good conduct and the impact on his daughter, but concluded that the Polish authorities' right to have him serve his sentence prevails.