Kamil Drzewiecki v Polish Judicial Authority (No 2)

Statutory proportionality in extradition requires the alleged conduct to be assessed in its wider context. Linked accusations should generally be considered together where they arise from the same course of conduct and would be sentenced together if proved. Extradition is not disproportionate merely because the likely sentence in England and Wales might be short or suspended. The court must consider the seriousness of the conduct, the likely penalty in the requesting state and whether less coercive measures are realistically available. The possibility of a suspended sentence is a matter for the requesting judicial authorities.

The appellant faced extradition to Poland on a separate accusation warrant concerning alleged VAT fraud involving false invoices and a fictional company. The alleged conduct occurred in January 2011 and was closely linked to later alleged VAT fraud for which extradition had already been ordered. District Judge Law ordered extradition in March 2024. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers, and the appellant maintained a challenge under Extradition Act 2003, section 21A(1)(b) and (2)–(3), relying on statutory proportionality and proposed fresh evidence concerning less coercive measures.

1. The application for permission to appeal and the application to adduce putative fresh evidence were refused. The appellant was to be extradited on the linked matters.

2. The alleged January conduct could not sensibly be treated in isolation. It was closely connected with the April to July 2011 allegations, concerned the same alleged false-invoice scheme and would be sentenced together if the appellant were convicted across the whole period. The extradition court should therefore assess the position in the round.

3. The case was not within the “minor financial offences” category in the applicable Criminal Practice Direction. In any event, the fact that extradition was also sought for another linked offence was an exceptional-circumstances consideration, reinforcing the need for a realistic overall assessment.

4. The first-instance judge was not arguably wrong to reject the proportionality challenge under Extradition Act 2003, section 21A. The relevant considerations included the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty in Poland, the appellant’s previous failure to comply with a suspended sentence, and the possibility of less coercive measures.

5. Extradition was plainly not statutorily disproportionate. The alleged conduct would attract custody in England and Wales, the maximum sentence in Poland was eight years, and there was no realistic prospect that less coercive measures would be used. The appellant’s increased qualifying remand and the earlier willingness of the Polish authorities to arrange questioning in the United Kingdom did not create a viable or decisive fresh-evidence case.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Law ordered extradition in March 2024. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers. Fordham J refused renewed permission and refused permission to adduce putative fresh evidence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The related extradition decision in Kamil Drzewiecki v Polish Judicial Authority, [2024] EWHC 1756 (Admin), was identified as the preceding judgment concerning linked alleged VAT fraud.