Kamil Sikora v District Court in Koszalin (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 2956 (Admin)
Przemyslaw Dziaduch v Polish Judicial Authority
16 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2900 (Admin)
High Court
A man fled Poland after committing crimes years ago and lived in the UK for a long time. A court decided he should be sent back to Poland to face the consequences, even though he hasn't committed any crimes in the UK and a lot of time has passed. The judge considered the time that passed since the crimes, but also the fact that the man ran away and hid. The higher court agreed with the decision to extradite him.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (aged 41) wanted for extradition to Poland for offences committed in 1999 (aged 17) and 2006 (aged 22).
- •Offences included burglary and fraud, resulting in a remaining sentence of 21 months and 17 days in Poland.
- •Appellant fled to the UK in 2007 and has resided there for 16.5 years without further convictions.
- •Extradition was ordered by District Judge Rai on 23 February 2023, with the sole issue being Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life).
- •The Polish authorities were aware of the Appellant's presence in the UK since around 2007, but were unable to enforce the warrants due to his fugitive status.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) in the context of extradition.
European Convention on Human Rights
Consideration of passage of time since offences in extradition cases.
HH v Italy (cited in judgment)
Impact of the requested person's age at the time of the offence.
Unspecified case law (mentioned in judgment)
Fugitivity as a factor in extradition cases.
Case law implicit in the judgment
Outcomes
Application for permission to appeal refused.
The judge's decision was deemed unimpeachable. The court found that the passage of time, while significant, was caveated by the appellant's fugitive status and that the judge appropriately balanced all factors, including the appellant's age at the time of the offences and the limited private life established in the UK.