Tomasz Weiss & Anor v Regional Court in Gliwice, Poland

Extradition is not abusive merely because the requesting state applies different evidential rules, or because conduct cannot realistically be prosecuted in the United Kingdom on the available admissible evidence. The court must distinguish domestic evidential viability from the fairness of proceedings abroad.

Under section 19 B of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge must assess whether a substantial measure of relevant activity occurred in the United Kingdom and then conduct an overall evaluation of the specified interests of justice. The desirability and practicability of a single trial, the availability of evidence and the interests of victims may outweigh the location of the alleged harm and the requested persons’ United Kingdom connections.

The Regional Court in Gliwice sought the surrender of Tomasz Weiss and Adrian Pietraszewski to Poland for offences arising from the alleged murder and assault of Andrzej Mucha in England, together with alleged efforts to conceal the offending and pervert the course of justice.

On 22 July 2024, the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered surrender. The appellants appealed on two grounds: that extradition was barred by forum under section 19 B of the Extradition Act 2003, and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process because the United Kingdom authorities had ceded jurisdiction to avoid domestic evidential rules.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The District Judge had reached the correct conclusions on both abuse of process and forum.

2. The abuse jurisdiction is limited and residual. Applying the approach in Tollman, the alleged conduct must be identified with particularity, assessed for its capacity to constitute abuse, and supported by reasonable grounds before the court considers whether extradition should be refused. There was no evidence of bad faith, manipulation or usurpation of the statutory extradition scheme.

3. The CPS had reasonably concluded that a United Kingdom prosecution for murder and assault was not viable. A joint trial relying critically on statements by co-accused would have faced substantial admissibility and reliability difficulties. Calling the co-accused as witnesses after separate proceedings would have involved further substantial uncertainties. A theoretical possibility that evidence might be admitted did not create a realistic prospect of conviction.

4. The fact that Polish procedure permitted statements by co-accused to be considered against all defendants did not establish unfairness. Different national rules of evidence may nevertheless secure a fair trial. Article 6 of the Convention concerns the procedures by which fairness is ensured, rather than prescribing domestic rules of admissibility. Extradition would be barred only by a sufficiently fundamental or flagrant denial of justice, for which there was no evidence.

5. For section 19 B, the District Judge was entitled to weigh the interests of the victim’s family, the availability of necessary evidence in Poland, the CPS prosecutor’s belief that the United Kingdom was not the appropriate forum, and the desirability and practicability of one joint trial. Those factors outweighed the fact that the immediate harm occurred in the United Kingdom. Delay and the appellants’ United Kingdom connections were properly treated as marginal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 12 November 2025, Mr Justice Hilliard dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders for surrender made by the District Judge.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 22 July 2024, the District Judge ordered the surrender of Weiss and Pietraszewski to Poland.