Alicja Hanna Rolbiecka-Platta v Regional Court in Poznan, The Republic of Poland

On an appeal against an extradition order, the Administrative Court asks whether the district judge was wrong and whether a different answer would have required discharge. Findings made after oral evidence are ordinarily respected.

A person may be a fugitive where, knowing that a suspended sentence may be activated, they breach its conditions and fail to maintain required contact, thereby placing themselves beyond the reach of the legal process. Article 8 will defeat extradition only rarely. Interference with private life must be assessed against the strong public interest in extradition and, in family-life cases, will ordinarily require an exceptionally severe impact. A bail curfew may be considered but will rarely decide the balance. The appeal was dismissed.

This was an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 from District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Bristow’s order of 16 May 2025. The order directed extradition to Poland to serve a two-year sentence imposed for 19 fraud offences. The sentence had initially been suspended subject to compensation, but was activated after compensation was not paid.

The appellant challenged the findings that she was a fugitive and that extradition was proportionate under Article 8 ECHR. The passage-of-time argument was abandoned on appeal. Permission was granted on the fugitivity and Article 8 grounds. The central issues were whether the district judge was wrong on either question and whether a different decision would have required discharge.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under section 27(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the Administrative Court could allow the appeal only if the district judge ought to have decided a question differently and, on that basis, would have been required to order the appellant’s discharge. The passage-of-time argument under section 14 was abandoned on appeal.
2. Fugitivity. The correct approach required careful assessment of whether the appellant deliberately and knowingly placed herself beyond the reach of the legal process. The district judge had heard oral evidence and found that she knew of the proceedings, the suspended sentence, its conditions and the consequences of non-compliance. She had signed an obligation to provide changes of address, failed to pay compensation and failed to maintain the required contact. Those findings were not lightly to be disturbed. The court applied the principle in Wisniewski v Regional Court of Wroclaw, Poland [2016] EWHC 386 (Admin) that knowledge of the risk of activation, together with breach of contact obligations, could support a finding of fugitivity. Applying the linked themes identified in Makowska v Poland [2020] EWHC 2371 (Admin), the case involved locational dynamism, informational deficit and intended consequential elusiveness. Ground 1 therefore failed.
3. Article 8 framework. The court was required to conduct a structured proportionality assessment, weighing interference with private and family life against the strong public interest in extradition. The approach in Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and others [2025] EWHC 1274 (Admin) required focus on whether the district judge’s outcome was wrong, while respecting findings made after oral evidence. The guidance in Andrysiewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23 confirmed that Article 8 will defeat extradition only rarely and that family-life cases generally require an exceptionally severe impact.
4. Application. The public interest was particularly strong because the offending involved repeated identity fraud over a sustained period, a two-year custodial sentence and failure to pay compensation. The appellant’s established private life, curfew, financial circumstances, alleged domestic abuse and mental-health evidence did not approach the required threshold. The curfew could be considered but rarely carries decisive weight unless a case is finely balanced, as illustrated by Begum v District Court of Zutphen (Netherlands) [2023] EWHC 3291 (Admin) and Dedza v Regional Court in Olsztyn (Poland) [2022] EWHC 838. The district judge had also made clear that the outcome would have been the same if the appellant were not a fugitive and if the medical evidence were accepted at its highest. The ultimate proportionality conclusion was not shown to be wrong.

• Magistrates’ court: On 16 May 2025, District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Bristow rejected the appellant’s fugitivity, passage-of-time and Article 8 arguments and ordered extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The district judge had not been shown to have answered either relevant question wrongly or to have been required to order the appellant’s discharge.