UK Court Upholds Extradition Over Family Rights in Maciej Haczelski v Poland Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 459 (Admin)
Judgment on


In the matter of Maciej Haczelski v Poland, the High Court of Justice’s King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, has delivered an intricate judgment that navigates through a collision between extradition requirements and the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This analysis unpacks the nuances of the legal principles applied within the case, offering insights for legal professionals practicing in the UK.

Key Facts

The appellant, aged 38, sought to resist his extradition to Poland on grounds related to his Article 8 rights under the ECHR. The case’s context was an Extradition Arrest Warrant dated 1 July 2022, following a conviction in Poland for theft and breaching a previously suspended sentence. With the appellant having re-established contact with his 8-year-old daughter through proceedings in the Watford Family Court, the present appeal revolved around determining whether his extradition would disproportionately interfere with their rights under Article 8.

The key legal principles engaged in this case involved the interpretation and application of Article 8 of the ECHR within the Extradition Act 2003. The Court emphasized that any person affected by extradition, including family members, has relevant Convention rights that could potentially be interfered with and ought to be assessed for proportionality.

A focal point of this case was the assessment of proportionality in light of both established and fresh evidence concerning the appellant’s right to family life, the rights of his daughter, and other affected parties. The Court conducted a holistic evaluation considering the individual and cumulative factors for and against extradition, informed by past decisions such as HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25.

Key to the Court’s deliberation was the nuanced approach to the appellant’s right to family life, recent changes in circumstances due to the re-established contact with his daughter, and the passage of time since the offence occurred. The Court also grappled with the weight to be assigned to the appellant’s stable life in the UK and the seriousness of his offences.

The Court considered expert evidence, which raised questions about the credentials required for an expert witness in such cases. This took into account the CPR35 about civil proceedings as referenced in Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6 [2016] 1 WLR 597.


The Court upheld the extradition order, finding that the public interest in extraditing the appellant to serve his sentence in Poland decisively outweighed the detrimental impact on the family rights of the appellant and his daughter. The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that while the right to family life is indeed important, it is not absolute and can be outweighed by the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the Court declined to admit the new expert report as the fresh evidence was found lacking in proper authority and reliability, failing to meet the discipline expressed in the decisions, including Kennedy.


The judgment in Maciej Haczelski v Poland reaffirms the UK’s commitment to the principle of extradition and serves as a pertinent reminder that while Article 8 rights are highly regarded, they do not provide an absolute shield against extradition. The judgment illustrates the complex interplay between individual rights under the ECHR and the broader public interest. When considering the proportionality of interference with Article 8 rights, courts must undertake a comprehensive and well-reasoned evaluation of all relevant circumstances. The case underscores the significance of robust and authoritative expert evidence in extradition proceedings, while also highlighting the critical role played by authenticated and dependable findings regarding the best interests of children, emanating from authoritative sources, including family court proceedings.

Related Summaries