Leszek Bialy v Regional Court of Ostroleka, Poland
[2024] EWHC 232 (Admin)
Mateusz Kazimierz Swiatek v Regional Court In Lodz, Poland
27 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 726 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent back to Poland to face drug charges. He appealed, arguing the judge didn't properly consider his case. The appeal court agreed with the judge's decision. They said the judge had enough information to make a fair decision, and even if he missed one small point in the legal process, it didn't change the final result.
Key Facts
- •Mateusz Kazimierz Świątek (Appellant) appeals extradition to Poland for drug trafficking (amphetamine and marijuana) between 2010-2014.
- •Initial extradition order was discharged due to undue delay (section 14, Extradition Act 2003).
- •Appeal by Poland succeeded, remitting the case for consideration of Article 8 ECHR and section 21A of the Act.
- •Second extradition hearing ordered extradition; this appeal followed.
- •Appellant's expert witness had limited access to case files, impacting conclusions on likely sentence.
- •Co-defendant received a suspended sentence, raising questions of sentencing disparity.
- •Appellant argued the Judge failed to properly weigh expert evidence, assess likely sentence, consider co-defendant's sentence, and address proportionality under section 21A(1)(b).
Legal Principles
Extradition must be compatible with Convention rights (Article 8 ECHR) and proportionate (section 21A, Extradition Act 2003).
Extradition Act 2003, section 21A; European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8; HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, [2012] UKSC 25; Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski, [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
The judge is not obligated to conduct a detailed analysis of domestic sentencing guidelines when assessing likely penalty in extradition cases; however, they can consider it if appropriate.
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, [2012] UKSC 25; Miraszewski v Poland, [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin); Love v USA, [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
Extradition appeals focus on errors of law; appellate courts generally respect findings of fact by the District Judge.
Love v USA, [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Judge's decision to order extradition was not wrong. The limitations of the expert report were acknowledged, and the Judge's decision not to engage in a detailed comparison with domestic sentencing guidelines was justified given the lack of information on the Appellant's likely role in the crime. The omission regarding section 21A(1)(b) proportionality was considered inconsequential given the overlap with the Article 8 arguments.