Sebastian Grzelak v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland
[2023] EWHC 2319 (Admin)
Rafal Drozdowski v Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland & Anor
3 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 201 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Poland for crimes he allegedly committed a long time ago. He says extradition would hurt his family and mental health. The court decided that the seriousness of the crimes is more important and he must go back to Poland to face trial.
Key Facts
- •Rafal Drozdowski, a Polish national, appeals his extradition to Poland on two European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) relating to six alleged offences committed between June 2004 and July 2004.
- •The offences include assault, participation in a criminal group dealing in drugs and forged banknotes, firearm possession, and armed robbery.
- •Drozdowski argues extradition breaches his Article 8 rights (right to respect for private and family life) due to significant delays in prosecution, impact on his children, and Brexit's uncertainty regarding his re-entry to the UK.
- •A 17-year delay exists between the alleged offences and the issuance of the EAWs.
- •Drozdowski has established a family life in the UK with a partner and two children; he also has a history of mental health issues, including suicidal ideation.
- •Expert evidence was presented regarding the impact of extradition on Drozdowski's mental health and the well-being of his children.
Legal Principles
Extradition is barred if it would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time.
Extradition Act 2003, sections 11(1)(c) and 14
Extradition is barred if incompatible with Convention rights (Article 8). The court must balance the public interest in extradition against the impact on the extraditee's and family's private and family life.
Extradition Act 2003, section 21A(1)(a); H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic [2012] UKSC 25; Norris v Government of the United States of America (No.2) [2010] UKSC 9; Konecny v Czech Republic [2019] UKSC 8
On appeal, the court considers whether the District Judge made the wrong decision regarding proportionality under Article 8. Errors or omissions don't automatically invalidate the decision.
Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The District Judge's decision was within his discretion. While acknowledging the delay and its impact on Drozdowski's family life and mental health, the Judge found that the seriousness of the alleged offences, Drozdowski's criminal history, and the public interest in extradition outweighed these factors. The fresh evidence provided did not materially alter the balance.