High Court Considers Appeal on Article 8 Rights in Extradition Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2859 (Admin)
Judgment on


In the case of Sebastian Klos v Regional Court in Warsaw (Poland) ([2023] EWHC 2859 (Admin)), Fordham J of the High Court of Justice in the King’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) presided over an extradition matter involving Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which relates to the right to respect for one’s private and family life. Herein, the Court considered an appeal against extradition grounded in the changing familial circumstances of the Appellant, which bore upon his and his family’s Article 8 rights.

Key Facts

The Appellant, aged 37, faced extradition to Poland pursuant to an Extradition Arrest Warrant linked to 12 offences of fraud and one offence of using a false instrument committed between August 2009 and September 2011. After being arrested, he represented himself in the initial proceedings, whereby District Judge Callaway ordered his extradition. The Appellant’s circumstances saw a significant change with the birth of a third child post the initial hearing, prompting a fresh Article 8 argument centered on the impact of his extradition on the private and family life of his three very young children and wife. The Appellant’s case was further supported by evidence, particularly a letter from the Polish Court, which potentially contested the finding that he was a fugitive.

The central legal principle contested in this case was the Appellant’s right under Article 8 of the ECHR. The key consideration was whether extradition would be compatible with Article 8 rights of everyone affected by this process. Unlike the district judge’s reference to an “exceptionality test”, Fordham J noted that the court does not apply such a test in the traditional sense, but rather it considers whether there are “exceptionally severe consequences” pursuant to the landmark case HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25.

Another point the Court acknowledged was the ‘fugitivity’ finding by the District Judge. This assessment was based on whether the Appellant had indeed informed Polish authorities of his address change. The fresh evidence (a June 2020 letter from the Polish Court addressed to the Appellant’s UK residence) was considered potentially potent enough to undermine the original finding of him being a fugitive.


The decision of Fordham J was to grant permission to appeal on the basis of Article 8 considerations, taking into account the recent birth of the Appellant’s third child, which could not have been addressed by the District Judge previously. Furthermore, the Court deferred the decision regarding the fresh evidence to the Judge presiding over the substantive hearing, thereby not precluding it from potentially influencing the outcome. Fordham J found it appropriate for a substantive hearing to be convened to ensure that extradition would indeed by compatible with the affected individuals’ Article 8 rights.


The High Court’s decision to consider the appeal illustrates the judiciary’s responsiveness to evolving personal circumstances of individuals in extradition cases with specific regard to their human rights as enshrined in the ECHR. It also exemplifies the dynamic nature of the law, which can adapt to new evidence and changes in appellants’ lives. Fordham J’s judgment underscores the significance of Article 8, individual human rights, and stresses the importance of a reevaluation given newly emerged facts that could alter the legal landscape against which the rights of individuals and their families are assessed in extradition proceedings.