Karol Sztakowski v Regional Court in Wlcoclawek (Poland)

Anonymisation of a person sought for extradition is an exceptional derogation from open justice. The applicant must establish, by clear and cogent evidence, that withholding identity is strictly necessary to protect Article 8 rights. Article 10 rights and the public interest in transparent criminal and extradition proceedings must also be considered.

The existence of children, or the inclusion of sensitive family information that is routinely considered in Article 8 extradition challenges, will generally be insufficient. Anonymisation may be justified where the evidence concerns exceptionally intimate circumstances, such as a child’s devastating and life-limiting medical condition. The fact that an application is made after judgment has been handed down strengthens the presumption of publication in full.

The appellant had previously appealed against an order of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland. The appeal was dismissed on 30 April 2025. The judgment addressed the impact of extradition on the appellant’s children and contained sensitive personal information about them.

After judgment had been handed down, the appellant applied for the published judgment to withhold the names of himself and members of his family, with further identifying details redacted. The central issue was whether publication in that form was necessary to protect the children’s rights under Article 8 ECHR, having regard to Article 10 ECHR and open justice.

1. The application for anonymisation was refused. The court held that the circumstances did not justify departing from the fundamental principle of open justice.

2. The High Court has power, when hearing a statutory appeal against an extradition order, to make orders preventing an unjustified interference with Article 8 rights. That power must be exercised consistently with Article 10 ECHR, section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the principle that justice is ordinarily administered in public.

3. Derogations from open justice must be exceptional. The applicant bears the burden of showing, by clear and cogent evidence, that the restriction is strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. The approach in In re Press Association [2013] 1 WLR 1979 and Short v Falkland Islands [2020] EWHC 439 (Admin); [2020] 4 WLR 68 applies in extradition proceedings.

4. The mere fact that children are mentioned, or that their circumstances are considered in an Article 8 assessment, will ordinarily be insufficient. The material in this case was sensitive but fell within the type of information routinely considered in extradition cases. It did not approach the exceptional circumstances identified in BM v Republic of Ireland (No 2) [2020] EWHC 648 (Admin); [2020] 4 WLR 70, concerning a child with a devastating and life-limiting condition requiring highly intimate disclosure.

5. The timing of the application, after the judgment had been finalised and handed down, reinforced the presumption that the judgment should remain publicly accessible in full. The potential distress and embarrassment were real but did not meet the high threshold required to override transparency in court proceedings.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appellant’s extradition appeal was dismissed on 30 April 2025. The consequential application for anonymisation of the published judgment was refused on 16 May 2025.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: an order for the appellant’s extradition to Poland was made on 21 March 2024.