Marcin Cwiklinski v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2901 (Admin)
Supinski v Polish Judicial Authority
10 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1447 (Admin)
High Court
A man fled Poland after being convicted of crimes. He built a new life in the UK. The UK court decided to send him back to Poland to finish his sentence, even though there were some mistakes in the initial extradition process. The court decided that even with the mistakes, he should still go back, because he originally ran away knowing he was going to be punished.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition to Poland from Westminster Magistrates' Court.
- •Appellant, Pawel Supinski, convicted in Poland of five offences (two judgments).
- •Judgment 1: 1 year 8 months (served in part).
- •Judgment 2: 2 years 5 months (all outstanding).
- •Appellant fled Poland in 2006 after Judgment 1, avoiding service of Judgment 2.
- •Appellant established life in the UK with family, employment, and settled status.
- •Appeal grounds: 1. Failure to discharge Judgment 2 under s.20(3) Extradition Act 2003; 2. Breach of Article 8 ECHR due to delay and age at time of offences.
- •Further information received after District Judge's decision, admitted.
- •Appellant was 16-18 years old at time of offences in Judgment 2 (2002-2003).
Legal Principles
Extradition Act 2003, s.20(3): Discharge if convicted in absence without deliberate absconding and entitled to retrial.
Extradition Act 2003
Extradition Act 2003, s.26 & s.27: Grounds for appeal against extradition decisions.
Extradition Act 2003
Article 8 ECHR: Right to respect for private and family life.
European Convention on Human Rights
Balancing act between public interest in extradition and Article 8 rights (Celinski principle).
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and Ors [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Public interest in extradition generally outweighs Article 8 rights unless consequences are exceptionally severe (HH v Italy).
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
District Judge's errors (incorrect sentence length, lack of retrial right, incorrect finding of deliberate absconding) did not change the outcome. Balancing exercise, considering only Judgment 1, favoured extradition despite delay.