APPEAL UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003 BY SLAWOMIR LAGUNIONEK AGAINST THE LORD ADVOCATE AND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003 BY THE LORD ADVOCATE AGAINST SLAWOMIR LAGUNIONEK [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_53 (25 June 2015)

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003 BY SLAWOMIR LAGUNIONEK AGAINST THE LORD ADVOCATE AND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003 BY THE LORD ADVOCATE AGAINST SLAWOMIR LAGUNIONEK [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_53 (25 June 2015)

The appellant failed to meet the high threshold for oppression or injustice under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003; as a fugitive, he could not rely on delay absent exceptional circumstances, which were not established. The sheriff erred in law in finding oppression in EAW 2; the Polish authorities took reasonable steps, and there was no evidence of prejudice to a fair trial or exceptional hardship.

Citation
[2015] ScotHC HCJAC_53
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Slawomir Lagunionek; Respondent/appellant: The Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decisions on Two European Arrest Warrants
Outcome
Mr Lagunionek's appeal against extradition under EAW 1 refused; Lord Advocate's appeal against discharge under EAW 2 allowed.
Legal Topics
Passage of Time Bar to Extradition, Oppression and Injustice in Extradition, European Arrest Warrant, Fugitive Status, Fair Trial Rights
Extradition Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law Passage of Time Bar to Extradition Oppression and Injustice in Extradition European Arrest Warrant Fugitive Status Fair Trial Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Slawomir Lagunionek

Appellant/respondent

The Lord Advocate

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decisions on Two European Arrest Warrants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition is barred by passage of time under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether delay by Polish authorities constituted oppression or injustice justifying refusal of extradition
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's status as a fugitive precludes reliance on delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to meet the high threshold for oppression or injustice under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003; as a fugitive, he could not rely on delay absent exceptional circumstances, which were not established. The sheriff erred in law in finding oppression in EAW 2; the Polish authorities took reasonable steps, and there was no evidence of prejudice to a fair trial or exceptional hardship.

Court Disposition

Mr Lagunionek's appeal against extradition under EAW 1 refused; Lord Advocate's appeal against discharge under EAW 2 allowed.

Orders

  • Refusal of Mr Lagunionek's appeal against extradition to Poland under EAW 1.
  • Allowing the Lord Advocate's appeal against the sheriff's discharge under EAW 2.