Dawid Filip Huzniak v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition case, Article 8 ECHR will not prevent extradition where the offences are serious and the public interest in prosecution decisively outweighs the individual and family circumstances relied upon. Unsupported assertions about residence, relationships and financial support carry little or no weight, particularly where they were not put in evidence before the extradition judge. The court may proceed in the appellant’s absence where the hearing was properly notified, the appellant was warned of that possibility, and there is no proper basis for an adjournment.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland on an accusation Extradition Arrest Warrant concerning alleged serious violence, robbery and threats. Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition on 17 January 2023. An Article 8 ECHR appeal was filed, but permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 13 October 2023.

At the hearing before the Administrative Court, the appellant declined to attend the arranged video link despite being warned that the case might proceed in his absence. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether the asserted private and family life interests arguably made extradition incompatible with Article 8.

1. Proceeding in absence. The hearing had been scheduled and notified. The appellant had been warned that it could proceed in his absence and had been given an opportunity to explain his non-attendance. There was no basis for an adjournment.
2. Article 8 ECHR. The court held that the case did not even arguably involve a violation of Article 8. The alleged offences were exceptionally serious, involving repeated violence, burning, use of a chemical, robbery and threats to kill. The strong public interest in extradition and prosecution decisively outweighed the matters relied upon, even assuming that they were true.
3. Weight of unsupported evidence. Assertions concerning the appellant’s four-year residence in the United Kingdom, relationship with a partner and financial support for his son in Poland were unsupported by evidence or documents and had not been before the extradition judge. They did not establish an arguable Article 8 case.
4. Disposition. Permission to appeal was refused. The appellant was to be extradited to face trial in Poland.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal refused on 5 June 2024.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Extradition ordered on 17 January 2023.
• Administrative Court: Permission to appeal on the Article 8 ECHR issue was refused on the papers on 13 October 2023.