Siwak v Prosecutor General's Office, Poland

Siwak v Prosecutor General's Office, Poland

Extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant's family life under Article 8 ECHR, given the significant delay for which he was not responsible, his reformed character, and the severe impact on his young children and partner, including likely loss of face-to-face contact and deterioration in AP's mental health and parenting capacity. The public interest in extradition was moderately diminished by delay and lack of urgency by the requesting authority. The appellant was not a fugitive and had not knowingly breached obligations. The cumulative effect of these factors rendered extradition disproportionate.

Parties
Appellant: Jan Siwak; Defendant: Prosecutor General's Office, Poland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; extradition refused
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Delay in Extradition, Family Life, Proportionality, Public Interest, Best Interests of Children
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Extradition Law Article 8 ECHR Delay in Extradition Family Life Proportionality Public Interest +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Siwak

Appellant

Prosecutor General's Office, Poland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant's and his family's Article 8 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether delay in extradition proceedings diminishes the public interest in extradition
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was a fugitive or responsible for delay

Ratio Decidendi

Extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant's family life under Article 8 ECHR, given the significant delay for which he was not responsible, his reformed character, and the severe impact on his young children and partner, including likely loss of face-to-face contact and deterioration in AP's mental health and parenting capacity. The public interest in extradition was moderately diminished by delay and lack of urgency by the requesting authority. The appellant was not a fugitive and had not knowingly breached obligations. The cumulative effect of these factors rendered extradition disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; extradition refused

Orders

  • Extradition order set aside
  • Appellant discharged