High Court finds Polish man’s extradition cannot be blocked on basis of help given to ex-partner

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] HCJAC 15
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Matthews

Krzysztof Romanik, who was subject to an outstanding sentence imposed by the District Court in Szczecin in August 2020, also argued that his poor mental health ought to be taken into account as well as the age of some of the convictions on which the prison sentence was based. The respondent contended that the interference with the appellant’s Article 8 rights was not sufficiently severe to outweigh the benefits of his extradition.

The appeal was heard by Lord Matthews, Lord Armstrong, and Lady Carmichael, with the appellant appearing as a party litigant, his agents having withdrawn from acting, and Logan, advocate depute, appearing for the lord advocate on behalf of the Polish Judicial Authority.

Constant weighty interest

On 26 September 2019, the appellant was convicted and sentenced at the District Court for Szczecin-Centrum for eleven charges of theft by breaking and entering between 16 January 2005 and 9 March 2005. He was sentenced to a period of two years’ and six months imprisonment. In a letter dated 21 September 2023, it is recorded that the appellant did not participate in his trial, although he was represented at trial by a lawyer. In August 2020, the District Court sentenced him of new to a cumulative sentence of four years’ imprisonment, combining sentences from previous convictions in 2004 and 2008.

In evidence, the appellant explained that he had been in a relationship with Ms A, although they were no longer partners. Their relationship ended when she was admitted to Forth Valley Hospital between February and July 2024. He described her mental health as poor and said that she took drugs which caused her to become enraged and threaten to harm herself. The appellant maintained in evidence that he visited her around four days per week to help with household tasks, helping her wash and taking her for walks, because she had no family in Scotland apart from a sister with whom she had no contact. Ms A gave her own evidence, which suggested that the frequency of the appellant’s visits depended on the week and on the state of her mental health.

The appellant accepted that he had been extradited to Poland once before in 2018 and had returned to Scotland after a month-and-a-half. He maintained that he had been given permission by the prosecutor to leave Poland and that he was expecting to receive a citation to attend court, having provided an address for it to be sent to. The sheriff determined that extradition would not be oppressive in the circumstances, that there was no evidence that any of his three children were dependent on him, and that Ms A was no longer a member of his family and interference with his Article 8 rights was proportionate.

For the respondent it was submitted that there was a constant and weighty public interest in extradition, and the sheriff had carried out the correct approach to his proportionality assessment. Albeit a close friend, Ms A was not a member of the appellant’s family and had other sources of support apart from the appellant. In all of the circumstances, the public interest in extradition was not overridden.

Friend who provides assistance

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Matthews began by briefly addressing the mental health argument: “The evidence available to the court surrounding the appellant’s health is very slim. The psychiatrist’s report is not particularly supportive in that, whilst he has presented with mild anxiety and occasional suicidal thoughts, there is no evidence to suggest that he suffers from a major mental disorder such as severe depression, psychosis or mania. His mental health difficulties, and indeed his addiction problems are likely to be managed by the Polish authorities. Nothing in the submissions before us or the letter from the Social Work Department advances the appellant’s position in any way. The circumstances do not come close to meeting the test and this ground of appeal must fail.”

He then turned to the Article 8 case: “Dealing first with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his children, the status quo will largely be unaffected. The appellant will still be able to maintain telephone contact with his children, who do not, in any event, live in Scotland. The public interest in extradition far outweighs the Article 8 rights as they exist between the appellant and his children.”

Considering whether the appellant and Ms A had a family life together, Lord Matthews said: “The findings in fact of the sheriff anent the relationship between the appellant and Ms A are limited to (a) the fact that they were in a romantic relationship, they are no longer in that relationship and that they remain friends; and (b) the appellant visits her ‘regularly’, sometimes providing help around the house. These facts do not disclose a relationship which can be designated as ‘family life’ within the meaning of Article 8. The extent of the relationship can be likened to a friend who provides some assistance from time to time.”

He concluded: “There is no basis within the findings in fact, or in any of the submissions made to us, for the view that the appellant’s extradition will be an exceptionally severe interference with Ms A’s Article 8 rights anent the appellant. There will undoubtedly be interference with his right to a private life but no material was presented to us to suggest that that would be disproportionate. There was reference to the amount of time the appellant has spent in this country but precious little else by way of indication, for example, of any ties he had formed beyond Ms A.”

Leave to appeal against extradition was therefore refused.