Marcin Cwiklinski v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2901 (Admin)
Norbert Miernik v Sad Okregowy III Criminal Division In Kielce, Poland
13 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1457 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent back to Poland to serve a jail sentence for fraud. He tried to appeal, saying his human rights were violated and there were mistakes in the legal process. The court said the original decision was correct and threw out his appeal.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (35) wanted for extradition to Poland for a 2016 fraud conviction (6-month sentence unserved).
- •Arrested in November 2022, released on bail, extradition ordered in December 2023.
- •Appellant argued Article 8 ECHR and later raised issues under sections 10 and 20 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Appellant's legal team submitted late materials and a new ground of appeal relating to Section 20, referencing the Supreme Court's Bertino decision.
- •The alleged crime involved forging a proof of payment, potentially falling under fraud in Poland.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) is not a viable ground of resistance to extradition if public interest in extradition decisively outweighs private and family life considerations.
ECHR
Section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a formal determination on dual criminality.
Extradition Act 2003
Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 concerns deliberate absence from proceedings.
Extradition Act 2003
The principles established in *Bertino* [2024] UKSC 9 regarding Section 20 and deliberate absence from proceedings.
Bertino [2024] UKSC 9
Dual criminality exists if the alleged offence constitutes a crime in both the requesting and requested states.
Implicit in Extradition Act 2003
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Judge's findings regarding Article 8 and Section 10 were unassailable. The late Section 20 argument lacked merit given the Judge's findings and the Appellant's representation at relevant hearings. The alleged crime clearly involved forgery and dishonesty.