Tomasz Sawicki v Circuit Law Court in Swidnica, Poland

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court must decide whether the extradition judge was wrong and, if so, whether discharge was required. Where multiple offences and sentences are pursued under separate warrants, the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003 requires separate consideration of each offence. Remand credit must be considered against individual outstanding penalties where sentences have not been aggregated. Extradition may therefore be refused for penalties extinguished by remand credit while proceeding on other warrants.

Article 8 proportionality remains a fact-sensitive balance. Delay, fugitivity, rehabilitation, family impact and the outstanding sentence must be assessed cumulatively. There is no exceptionality test, but only exceptionally severe interference is likely to outweigh the public interest in extradition.

This was an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Leake at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The appellant was sought by Poland under two conviction warrants and one accusation warrant concerning historic dishonesty, burglary, theft and criminal damage offences.

The lower court discharged the appellant on one short penalty because United Kingdom remand credit exceeded the time remaining, but ordered extradition on the other matters. Permission to appeal was granted on the article 8 ground after the Supreme Court’s decision in Andrysiewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23. The central issues were whether the Multiple Offences Order required further discharges and whether the changed sentence position altered the article 8 balance.

1. Appeal partly allowed. The extradition order in respect of AW2, Decisions 2 and 3, was quashed and the appellant was discharged on those matters. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and extradition under AW1 and AW3 remained ordered.

2. The appeal test under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 required the court to decide whether the lower court was wrong. Following Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), the appellate court could stand back and conclude that the overall evaluation was wrong where crucial factors should have been weighed substantially differently.

3. The Multiple Offences Order applied because the request concerned more than one offence. It required separate application of the statutory provisions to each offence. The court was entitled, and required, to take account of remand credit even though Poland had not aggregated the sentences. Under article 26 of Framework Decision 2002/584 and article 624 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020, qualifying detention had to be deducted from the custodial terms. The AW2 penalties were therefore complete, without double counting credit against the penalty already discharged. The remaining AW2 decisions had to be discharged.

4. Article 8 required a cumulative proportionality assessment. The court adopted the stepping-back approach and considered the substantial remaining AW1 sentence, the appellant’s fugitivity, the public interests in comity, mutuality, deterrence and the rule of law, institutional delay, rehabilitation, and the interference with the appellant’s relationship with his partner and her adult son. Fugitivity reduced, but did not eliminate, the significance of delay. The institutional delay had limited effect on the public interest because the appellant had materially contributed to the overall delay.

5. The article 8 balance remained decisively in favour of extradition. There was no exceptionality test, but the interference would generally need to be exceptionally severe to defeat the public interest. The court would not re-sentence the appellant or decide whether he had been punished sufficiently; those matters belonged to the Polish authorities. The orders were therefore compatible with article 8.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed in part. The extradition order concerning AW2, Decisions 2 and 3, was quashed and the appellant was discharged on those matters. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Leake ordered extradition on AW1, AW2 Decisions 2 and 3, and AW3, but discharged the appellant on AW2 Decision 1 because remand custody exceeded the remaining penalty.