Arkadiusz Rozwens v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland
[2024] EWHC 624 (Admin)
Zygmunt Niziol v Regional Court in Warsaw (A Polish Judicial Authority)
19 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3252 (Admin)
High Court
A man appealed his extradition to Poland, claiming unfairness in the Polish courts. The judge agreed there were problems with the Polish system but found that the man's specific case wasn't unfair enough to stop extradition. He was sent back to Poland.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, a Polish national, appeals an extradition order based on fresh evidence.
- •The fresh evidence concerns a Polish Supreme Court decision dismissing his appeal and a statement from his Polish lawyer.
- •The appellant was convicted in Poland for four offences related to financial misconduct.
- •The appellant argues the Polish judiciary lacks independence and impartiality, his trial was unfair, and he was convicted in absentia.
- •The respondent argues the fresh evidence doesn't alter the original extradition order.
- •The District Judge (DJ) considered extensive evidence, including expert testimony on the Polish judicial system.
- •The DJ rejected claims of political motivation and a lack of a fair trial.
- •The fresh evidence reveals procedural irregularities in the Supreme Court's decision, including a closed hearing and lack of reasons.
- •The appellant's lawyer argues these irregularities demonstrate a flagrant denial of justice.
Legal Principles
An arrest warrant for extradition must be issued by a 'judicial authority' possessing independence and impartiality.
Section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003
To refuse extradition due to judicial deficiencies, a two-step process is needed: assessing systemic deficiencies and conducting a case-by-case analysis.
CJEU cases L&P C354/20 PPU and C412/20 PPU
Mere presence of a judge appointed under a controversial system isn't sufficient to establish a fair trial risk.
CJEU case Openbaar Ministerie
To resist extradition on Articles 5 or 6 ECHR grounds, a 'flagrant denial of justice' must be demonstrated.
Othman v United Kingdom
In conviction cases, a fugitive must prove flagrant denial of a fair trial on the balance of probabilities.
[2023] UKSC 39
Extradition can be refused if the requested person didn't appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 4a of the Framework Decision
'Trial resulting in the decision' refers to the instance finally ruling on guilt and imposing a penalty.
CJEU case Tadas Tupikas
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The fresh evidence, while showing procedural irregularities in the Supreme Court, doesn't demonstrate a lack of independence and impartiality in the overall judicial process or a flagrant denial of justice.
Ground 1 (lack of judicial independence) dismissed.
The evidence doesn't show Judge Kozielewicz acted to favor any political faction. The secondment of Judge Kalbarczyk alone is insufficient to bar extradition.
Ground 4 (flagrant denial of justice) dismissed.
While procedural unfairness occurred in the Supreme Court, it doesn't meet the high threshold for a flagrant denial of justice, especially considering the fairness of the trial and appeal processes.
Ground 2 (conviction in absentia) dismissed.
The Supreme Court decision was a limited appellate review, not a 'trial' requiring the appellant's presence, as it didn't re-examine the merits of the case.
Similar Cases
District Court in Krakow, Poland v Kamil Pultorak
[2023] EWHC 2777 (Admin)
Leszek Bialy v Regional Court of Ostroleka, Poland
[2024] EWHC 232 (Admin)
Norbert Miernik v Sad Okregowy III Criminal Division In Kielce, Poland
[2024] EWHC 1457 (Admin)
Bartomiej Glanda v Polish Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 1025 (Admin)