Damian Dablewski v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland
[2024] EWHC 957 (Admin)
Randoslaw Rafal Sawicki v Polish Judicial Authority
7 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 381 (Admin)
High Court
A man living in the UK is wanted in Poland for a drug offence from many years ago. He says extradition would harm his family life in the UK because of his young son. The court decided the man must go back to Poland because the harm to his son wasn't bad enough to outweigh the importance of bringing criminals to justice.
Key Facts
- •Polish national, Rafal Sawicki, appeals extradition to Poland for a 2006 drug conviction (cannabis and MDMA).
- •Sentence was 18 months suspended, activated in 2009 after Sawicki evaded supervision and fled to the UK.
- •Sawicki has lived in the UK since 2008, established a business, and has a 9-year-old son.
- •Extradition challenged under Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) due to impact on his son.
- •District Judge found extradition proportionate despite the impact on Sawicki's son, considering the public interest in extradition and Sawicki's fugitive status.
Legal Principles
In extradition cases, the public interest in extradition usually outweighs Article 8 rights unless the consequences of interference with family life are exceptionally severe.
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25
A child's best interests are a primary consideration in Article 8 cases, but may be outweighed by other factors.
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25
Delay since the crime may diminish the weight of public interest and increase the impact on private and family life.
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25
A fugitive cannot argue that the requesting state's delay is a reason to deny extradition.
Gomes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
The weight of delay in extradition is reduced when private/family life in the UK resulted from the fugitive's actions.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Ors [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Article 8 presents a high hurdle in extradition; exceptionally severe consequences are needed to outweigh public interest.
HH and Norris v Government of the United States of America (No. 2) [2010] UKSC 9
Proportionality assessment under Article 8 is fact-specific; appellate courts should focus on the outcome of the District Judge's decision.
Celinski
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The District Judge correctly applied the Celinski balancing exercise, considering all relevant factors (including the son's situation) and finding extradition proportionate. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the interference with his Article 8 rights was exceptionally severe.