Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] UKSC 23 (11 June 2025)

Polish authorities sought extradition of the appellant to serve a two-year sentence for fraud offences. The Supreme Court addressed conflicting approaches in the King's Bench Division regarding the relevance of Polish early release provisions to article 8 ECHR proportionality assessments in extradition cases.

Facts

The Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland sought the extradition of Ewa Andrysiewicz to serve a two-year custodial sentence imposed for four connected fraud offences committed between 2007 and 2008. The sentence was originally suspended but was activated after she failed to comply with its conditions. The appellant was arrested in London on 21 January 2023 and subsequently ordered to be extradited by District Judge Turnock on 23 May 2023. Her appeal was dismissed by Swift J on 11 June 2024. Before the Supreme Court hearing, the appellant had served the equivalent of her entire sentence through remand in custody, leading to withdrawal of the extradition warrant and her discharge.

Procedural History

Despite the warrant’s withdrawal, the Supreme Court proceeded to determine the certified points of law regarding conflicting decisions in the King’s Bench Division about the relevance of Polish early release provisions to article 8 ECHR assessments.

Issues

The certified questions were:

(a) What weight can attach to the possibility that, following surrender pursuant to the warrant, the requesting judicial authority might permit the requested person’s release on licence under articles 77, 78, 80 and 82 of the Polish Penal Code?

(b) To what extent should the court assess the likely merits of an application under the early release provisions?

Judgment

The Role of Article 8 in Extradition Cases

The Supreme Court reiterated principles from Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) and H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa. The public interest in extradition carries very heavy weight, and only exceptionally severe consequences of interference with family life could outweigh this interest. Cases where article 8 defeats extradition will be rare.

Three Options Identified by Swift J

The Court considered three approaches to early release provisions:

Option One: Early release is solely a matter for the Polish court, with no weight attached to the possibility of release on licence. The Court rejected this as unrealistic.

Option Three: The court should form a view on the likely merits of the requested person’s application for early release. The Court rejected this approach, agreeing with Swift J that the reasoning in Dobrowolski contained an internal contradiction. A court cannot accept that a decision is for the Polish court, then evaluate the merits, and subsequently prevent the Polish court from making that decision by refusing extradition.

Option Two: The existence of early release provisions should be acknowledged, but save in rare cases, courts should not predict the outcome of applications in Poland. The bare possibility of early release adds little weight to the proportionality assessment.

Reasons for Endorsing Option Two

The Court identified strong practical considerations against predicting Polish court decisions: judges in this jurisdiction lack detailed knowledge of assessment methods, applicable Polish standards, Polish public policy considerations, and how discretions are exercised. Additionally, considerations of international comity militate against effectively usurping decisions that fall to be made by Polish courts regarding whether and when to grant release, what licence conditions to impose, and the appropriate probationary period.

Rare Cases

The Court envisaged that rare cases would be confined to situations where there is agreed or uncontested evidence demonstrating an overwhelming probability: (a) that the requested person would be released under article 77; (b) when that release would occur; (c) what the probation period and conditions would be; and (d) that the inability of a court in this jurisdiction to provide for such matters would not adversely affect the interests of the offender or the public.

Implications

This judgment provides authoritative guidance resolving conflicting approaches in the King’s Bench Division. It emphasises that article 8 defences in extradition cases will rarely succeed, reiterating that only exceptionally severe interference with family life can outweigh the public interest in extradition. The decision reinforces principles of international comity and practical limitations on courts in this jurisdiction predicting outcomes in foreign jurisdictions. The Court also called for robust case management and appropriate scrutiny of legal aid decisions in article 8 extradition challenges.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed in the sense that the extradition warrant was withdrawn and the appellant discharged after serving the equivalent of her sentence on remand. The Supreme Court endorsed Swift J's approach (Option Two) regarding the relevance of Polish early release provisions to article 8 ECHR proportionality assessments.

Source: Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] UKSC 23 (11 June 2025)