Dawid Filip Huzniak v Polish Judicial Authority

Arrangements were made for the Appellant to appear today by video link with an interpreter. The prison authorities have informed the Court staff that he has declined to leave his cell and attend the video link room. An emailed report records that he has been warned that the case may proceed in his absence, was given the opportunity to give reasons for not wanting to attend, and remained unresponsive. I have also been informed verbally by an officer on the video link that it is believed that the Appellant was pretending to be asleep, and at one point that he opened his eyes. The hearing was scheduled and notified, and I am entirely satisfied that there is no basis for adjourning.

The Appellant is 33 and is wanted for extradition to Poland. There is an accusation Extradition Arrest Warrant, issued in September 2020, certified in September 2021 on which he was arrested in September 2022. For the last 21 months he has been on remand in prison. The Judge at Westminster Magistrates Court ordered his extradition on 17 January 2023 after an oral hearing that day. The Appellant had produced no written statement. The court records stated that he had been advised to do so, by DJ Pilling at a hearing on 28 November 2022; and again by DJ Heptonstall at a hearing on 19 December 2022. The Judge’s judgment records that the Appellant also declined to give evidence at the January 2023 hearing.

An Article 8 ECHR appeal to this Court was filed and a proof of evidence was produced for the Appellant, by the solicitors then acting for him. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 13 October 2023. According to the proof of evidence the Appellant has been in the UK for 4 years. He has a claimed 4 year relationship with a partner; and claims to have provided financial support for a 17 year old son in Poland. He claims he did not come to the UK as a fugitive. He has produced no evidence of any of this, none of which was in evidence before the Judge. These are assertions with no supporting evidence or documents.

This is a clear case where extradition does not even arguably violate anyone’s Article 8 rights. The alleged offences are serious. What is said that, on 3 August 2019, acting with an accomplice who carried a knife, the Appellant repeatedly beat a victim with fists and metal objects, kicked them all over their body including their head; burnt them with hot metal objects; sprayed them with a chemical; set them on fire; deliberately causing extensive burn wounds and bruises all over the body; the Appellant demanded money and took the victim’s phone and other belongings; and then threatened to kill them and set fire to their home if they reported the robbery. The strong public interest considerations in support of extradition decisively outweigh all of the matters relied on (even if I assume they are true). Permission to appeal is refused and the Appellant will now be extradited to face trial in Poland.