Sebastian Szwarc vs Circuit Court Gliwice (Poland)

This case concerned the appeal of Sebastian Szwarc against the decision to extradite him to Poland to stand trial for drug trafficking offenses committed between January 2005 and July 2006.

TLDR:

• Sebastian Szwarc appealed against his extradition to Poland for drug trafficking charges.
• The High Court found issues with the arrest warrant's compliance and double jeopardy principles.
• The court also considered the passage of time and potential Article 8 ECHR violations.
• The appeal was allowed, and Szwarc's extradition was overturned.

The appellant, Sebastian Szwarc, appealed against the decision of the District Judge to order his extradition to Poland to stand trial for drug trafficking offenses alleged to have occurred between January 2005 and July 2006. The offenses are punishable by up to 12 years of imprisonment in Poland.

Leave to appeal was granted on several grounds, including the compliance of the arrest warrant with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the application of the double jeopardy principle under section 12, the impact of the passage of time under section 14, and the compatibility of the extradition with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The arrest warrant, issued on 30 July 2018 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 7 July 2022, alleged that Szwarc participated in trafficking substantial amounts of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances between January 2005 and July 2006. The warrant specified that Szwarc bought no less than 3.5 kilograms of amphetamine, 1 kilogram of hashish, and 4500 ecstasy tablets for further distribution.

Szwarc had previously been convicted in Poland in 2008 for drug-related offenses and served a three-year sentence. He moved to the UK in 2010 with the consent of his probation officer and has since lived and worked openly in the UK, obtaining settled status. He has two children and provides financial and material support to his former partner.

The District Judge found that the arrest warrant contained sufficient particulars to satisfy the requirements of section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act. However, the High Court found that the warrant's particulars were insufficient, especially given the context of Szwarc's 2008 conviction. The court noted that the lack of precision in the warrant made it difficult for Szwarc to challenge the extradition effectively.

On the issue of double jeopardy, the High Court found that the conduct for which Szwarc was being sought was substantially the same as the conduct for which he was convicted in 2008. The court noted that the offenses in the warrant and the 2008 conviction both involved drug trafficking in the same locations and during overlapping time periods.

The High Court also considered the passage of time and its impact on Szwarc's family life under Article 8 ECHR. The court found that the delay in issuing the arrest warrant and the subsequent extradition proceedings would cause significant hardship and distress to Szwarc and his family, making the extradition disproportionate.

As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered Szwarc's discharge.

Legal representatives: Mary Westcott (instructed by Bird & Co Solicitors) for the Applicant, Gary Dolan (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: The Hon. Mrs Justice Thornton

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1337 (Admin)