Malarz v Regional Court of Opole, Poland [2018] EWHC 28 (Admin) (16 January 2018)

Malarz v Regional Court of Opole, Poland [2018] EWHC 28 (Admin) (16 January 2018)

There was no abuse of process as the errors and delays were due to oversight and inefficiency, not manipulation or bad faith. The public interest in extradition, given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's fugitive status, outweighed the interference with his Article 8 rights. The District Judge's order for extradition was not wrong in law or in the proportionality assessment.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 28 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant (requested Person): Wojciech Malarz; Respondent (judicial Authority): Regional Court of Opole, Poland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; extradition order upheld.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), European Arrest Warrant, Limitation Periods, Proportionality, Mutual Trust in Extradition
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Abuse of Process Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) European Arrest Warrant Limitation Periods Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wojciech Malarz

Appellant (requested Person)

Regional Court of Opole, Poland

Respondent (judicial Authority)

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition proceedings amounted to an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

There was no abuse of process as the errors and delays were due to oversight and inefficiency, not manipulation or bad faith. The public interest in extradition, given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's fugitive status, outweighed the interference with his Article 8 rights. The District Judge's order for extradition was not wrong in law or in the proportionality assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; extradition order upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order for extradition made by the District Judge stands.