Dariusz Andrzej Oniszk v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 535 (Admin)
Regional Court in Lodz (Poland) v Mateusz Kazimerz Swiatek
25 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 3155 (Admin)
High Court
A man was let go because of a long delay in his extradition case. A higher court disagreed, saying the delay wasn't enough to stop his extradition, and sent the case back to be decided again.
Key Facts
- •The respondent (RP), a 32-year-old Polish national, is wanted for extradition to Poland on charges of drug trafficking.
- •The RP was discharged from extradition by a District Judge based on Section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 (passage of time).
- •The Appellant (RJA) appeals this discharge, arguing the Judge misapplied Section 14.
- •The RP's 'cross-appeal' based on Article 8 ECHR was withdrawn.
- •The alleged offenses involved drug trafficking from June 2010 to April 2014.
- •The RP was unaware of the investigation until December 2020, when Polish authorities located him in Blackpool.
- •There was a significant delay (around 7.5 years) between the alleged offenses and the extradition request.
- •The RP has settled status in the UK, stable employment, and a young daughter.
- •The Judge found the delay culpable and oppressive, leading to the discharge.
Legal Principles
Extradition is barred under Section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 if it would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time since the alleged offense.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 14
Delay caused by the accused's actions (fleeing, concealing whereabouts) cannot be used to bar extradition under Section 14.
Kakis v Govt of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779
Unexcusable delay by the requesting authority in bringing the RP to justice may justify a Section 14 bar, depending on circumstances.
Hunt v Court of First Instance Antwerp [2006] EWHC 165 (Admin)
The burden of proof is on the RP to show injustice or oppression under Section 14 (civil standard). Injustice relates to trial prejudice; oppression relates to hardship from changed circumstances.
Kakis v Govt of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779; Italy v Merico [2011] EWHC 1857 (Admin)
Appellate courts reviewing evaluative judgments must determine if the overall evaluation was wrong, not just whether a different answer could be reached.
Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
In borderline cases where the accused is not to blame, culpable delay by the requesting state may tip the balance against extradition.
Zengota v Poland [2017] EWHC 191; Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
Outcomes
The appeal by the RJA is allowed.
The Judge's conclusion that extradition would be oppressive under Section 14 was wrong. While there was significant delay and impacts on the RP's life, these did not meet the high threshold of oppression, especially considering the seriousness of the alleged offenses. The Judge's focus on culpable delay, while understandable, overweighed other factors.
The order discharging the RP is quashed.
The case is remitted to the Westminster Magistrates' Court to reconsider the extradition request, including evaluating the Article 8 ECHR arguments on an updated basis.
Similar Cases
Jerzy Suszynski v Regional Court in Gorzow (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 2899 (Admin)
Michal Jagiellowicz v Regional Court In Elblag (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 2751 (Admin)
Przemyslaw Dziaduch v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2900 (Admin)
Rafal Drozdowski v Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland & Anor
[2023] EWHC 201 (Admin)