Leszek Bialy v Regional Court of Ostroleka, Poland
[2024] EWHC 232 (Admin)
Sebastian Szwarc v Circuit Court Gliwice (Poland)
4 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1337 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted of selling drugs in Poland in 2008. Poland now wants him back for buying drugs to sell during the same period. A UK court ruled that trying him again for essentially the same thing is unfair, even though the amounts of drugs involved were different. He was released.
Key Facts
- •Sebastian Szwarc appeals against extradition to Poland to stand trial for drug trafficking (January 2005 – July 2006).
- •Szwarc was previously convicted in Poland in 2008 for drug supply offences (2004-2006).
- •The Polish authorities became aware of the current allegations in May 2016.
- •Szwarc has lived openly in the UK since 2010, has settled status, and has two children.
- •The appeal challenges the District Judge's decisions on the sufficiency of the warrant, double jeopardy, passage of time, and Article 8 ECHR.
Legal Principles
Sufficiency of particulars in an extradition warrant under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Extradition Act 2003, section 2(4)(c)
Double jeopardy under section 12 of the Extradition Act 2003, encompassing both the same-in-fact-and-law and substantially-the-same-facts limbs.
Extradition Act 2003, section 12; R v Dwyer [2012] EWCA Crim 10; R v Nuh Bihe [2022] EWCA Crim 939; Fofana v France [2005] EWHC 744 (Admin)
Passage of time as a bar to extradition under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, considering oppression and injustice; Gomes and Goodyear v Trinidad & Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038
Extradition Act 2003, section 14; Gomes and Goodyear v Trinidad & Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038
Compatibility of extradition with Article 8 ECHR, requiring a balancing exercise; Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9; H(H) v Italy [2013] 1 AC 338; Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551
Article 8 ECHR; Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9; H(H) v Italy [2013] 1 AC 338; Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551
Standard of review on appeal: whether the first instance judge 'ought to have decided a question before him differently' and that this would have required him to discharge the appellant (s27(3) Extradition Act); Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551
Extradition Act 2003, section 27(3); Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; Appellant discharged.
The Court found that the charges in the warrant were based on substantially the same facts as the 2008 offending, engaging the wider principle of double jeopardy. The lack of precision in the warrant, coupled with Szwarc's unchallenged evidence of broader admissions in 2008, led to the conclusion that the extradition would be an abuse of process. The Court also found errors in the District Judge's analysis of passage of time and Article 8 ECHR.