Polish extradition appeal won: passage of time defeats £635,000 fraud request
Updated: Oct 25
George Hepburne Scott successfully represented the appellant in Oniszk v Polish Judicial Authority [2023] EWHC 535 (Admin), securing his discharge from extradition proceedings concerning alleged fraud worth approximately £635,000.
On 14 February 2023, Mrs Justice Steyn allowed the High Court appeal, finding that extradition to Poland was barred under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 because it would be oppressive by reason of the passage of time.
The decision illustrates how prolonged official inaction, a reasonable expectation that proceedings will not follow, and the family life established during that period can combine to defeat extradition - even where the allegations are serious.
The Polish extradition request
Poland sought the appellant’s extradition to face four allegations concerning computer hardware and false VAT invoices and returns. The alleged offending dated from September 2003 to September 2005.
The appellant had voluntarily attended interviews as a witness in 2006 and 2007. He moved to the United Kingdom in March 2008 and subsequently lived and worked openly here, paying tax.
Importantly, he was found not to be a fugitive from justice.
The Polish authorities decided to prosecute in November 2016. However, the extradition warrant was not issued until August 2020, and the appellant was arrested in March 2022.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition in August 2022. George represented him in the successful appeal against that decision.
Section 14: when does delay make extradition oppressive?
Under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition may be barred where the passage of time makes surrender unjust or oppressive.
Delay alone is insufficient. The court must examine its effect on the individual and the circumstances that developed during the intervening period.
In Oniszk, George argued that the District Judge had failed to consider the appellant’s false sense of security: after cooperating with the investigation and hearing nothing further for many years, he had reasonably come to believe that he would not face prosecution.
During that period, he established his life in the United Kingdom and became a father.
The High Court accepted George’s central argument
Steyn J agreed that the District Judge had failed to determine whether the passage of time had created a false sense of security.
The appellant had not known that he was under investigation until his arrest, almost 15 years after his last interview as a witness. None of the delay could be attributed to him.
By the time his relationship began in 2013 and his daughter was born in 2014, the court found that he would already have developed a strong sense of security.
At paragraph 33, Steyn J described that false sense of security as:
“a powerful consideration that the Judge omitted to take into account.”
The court found that, in the circumstances, it went considerably beyond ordinary hardship and amounted to oppression resulting from the passage of time.
Culpable delay despite a complex investigation
The High Court recognised that the allegations involved a complex investigation. Nevertheless, that explanation did not justify the full delay.
The decision to prosecute came 11 years after the last alleged offence and 13 years after the first. Further delay followed before the extradition warrant was issued.
Steyn J found that the delay was culpable and had been compounded by the authorities’ failure to act expeditiously after deciding to prosecute.
The seriousness of the allegations and the prospect of a substantial custodial sentence did not prevent the section 14 challenge from succeeding.
Extradition barred and discharge ordered in Polish extradition appeal
The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered Mr Oniszk’s discharge.
Because the passage-of-time ground succeeded, the court did not need to determine the separate Article 8 challenge concerning private and family life.
The judgment demonstrates the importance of examining the complete chronology of an extradition case and presenting the practical consequences of delay through focused evidence and legal argument.
Read the full judgment in Oniszk v Polish Judicial Authority [2023] EWHC 535 (Admin) here.
Alternatively, download the full judgment below:
Specialist representation in extradition appeals
George Hepburne-Scott is a specialist extradition barrister, Principal of UK Extradition Lawyer, and Head of Extradition at Church Court Chambers.
He represents individuals facing extradition to Poland and other jurisdictions, including in High Court appeals involving passage of time, human rights, prison conditions and challenges to extradition warrants.
Learn more about the grounds for challenging extradition, or contact George for advice about extradition proceedings or an appeal.
