SNT v District Court of Sosnowiec (Poland)

On an extradition appeal, primary findings of fact, particularly findings based on oral evidence and credibility, must ordinarily be respected. The appellate court may interfere only where the decision involves a material error of law, lacks evidential support, misunderstands material evidence, fails to consider relevant evidence, or is one which no reasonable judge could have reached.

Article 4 ECHR protection includes the non-punishment principle for trafficking victims. The extradition court must determine for itself whether the requested person is a trafficking victim. However, where the first-instance judge has considered the relevant evidence and reached a reasoned credibility conclusion, an appellate court should not substitute its own assessment merely because it might have evaluated the evidence differently.

The appellant challenged a District Judge’s order dated 11 April 2024 for his extradition to Poland to face trial for serious drug-production and organised-crime offences. He argued that extradition would breach Article 4 ECHR because he was a victim of trafficking who risked prosecution for compelled criminality, and would breach Article 8 because of his private life and mental-health circumstances in the United Kingdom.

Permission to appeal was granted. The central issue was whether the District Judge had been wrong to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant was not a victim of human trafficking. The Article 4 challenge concerning Poland’s non-punishment arrangements and the Article 8 challenge depended substantially on that finding.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court was not satisfied that the District Judge’s conclusions were wrong.
2. Under section 26(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal involved questions of law and fact. The appellate court derived from Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd that findings of fact must ordinarily be respected, especially where the judge heard the evidence. Intervention is justified for a material error of law, a finding without evidential support, a demonstrable misunderstanding or failure to consider material evidence, or a conclusion which no reasonable judge could have reached.
3. The District Judge had identified and considered the relevant evidence, including the country material, statutory guidance, medical evidence, the appellant’s oral evidence and the expert evidence. His reasons for rejecting the trafficking account included the arrest warrant’s description of a leading role in an organised criminal group, the appellant’s serious previous convictions including trafficking convictions, the absence of reported details concerning alleged traffickers, and the appellant’s vagueness about his dealings with the authorities.
4. The High Court had not seen or heard the appellant give evidence and had no transcript. In a case turning on credibility, that limitation made it impossible to conclude that the District Judge’s assessment was unsustainable. The appellant had therefore not shown that the District Judge ought to have found him to be a trafficking victim.
5. The court expressed no final concluded view on whether the evidence rebutted the presumption that Poland would comply with its ECHR obligations. It observed that the GRETA Report and Ms Dabrowska’s evidence provided powerful arguments that Poland lacked sufficient non-punishment provision, and that the District Judge’s reasoning did not clearly separate Article 4 compatibility from section 21A proportionality.
6. Because the trafficking finding failed, the Article 8 appeal also failed. Without that feature, the appellant’s private-life and mental-health circumstances did not outweigh the public interest in extradition for prosecution of serious offences.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — Appeal against the District Judge’s decision dated 11 April 2024; appeal dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates Court — Extradition proceedings resulted in the order for extradition to Poland.