LESZEK WITOLD DROZD v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

LESZEK WITOLD DROZD v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

The grounds of appeal under section 14 and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR are not reasonably arguable. The passage of time relevant to section 14 ended when the appellant became a fugitive, and there is no evidence of injustice or oppression. The appellant's health condition does not meet the threshold for section 25, and there is a presumption of adequate medical care by the Polish authorities. The Article 8 ground is decisively outweighed by the public interest in extradition and the appellant's deliberate concealment.

Parties
Appellant: Leszek Witold Drozd; Respondent: Polish Judicial Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extradition, European Arrest Warrant, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Section 14 Extradition Act, Section 25 Extradition Act
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition European Arrest Warrant Article 8 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Article 3 ECHR +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leszek Witold Drozd

Appellant

Polish Judicial Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the passage of time renders extradition unjust or oppressive under section 14
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's physical health makes extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25
  3. 3 Whether extradition would breach Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life)

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds of appeal under section 14 and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR are not reasonably arguable. The passage of time relevant to section 14 ended when the appellant became a fugitive, and there is no evidence of injustice or oppression. The appellant's health condition does not meet the threshold for section 25, and there is a presumption of adequate medical care by the Polish authorities. The Article 8 ground is decisively outweighed by the public interest in extradition and the appellant's deliberate concealment.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on all grounds is refused.
  • Permission to add the section 25 ground is refused.