Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent (a Polish judicial authority) sought the extradition of the Appellant to serve a two-year custodial sentence for four fraud offences committed in 2007-2008. The sentence, originally suspended, was activated in 2018 after the Appellant failed to comply with its conditions. She was arrested in The City (United Kingdom) on 21 January 2023 and remanded in custody. Judge Turnock ordered extradition on 23 May 2023. Judge Swift dismissed an appeal on 11 June 2024 but certified two questions of general public importance concerning the relevance of Polish early-release provisions to the Article 8 ECHR proportionality assessment. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was eventually granted. Before the substantive hearing took place, the Appellant had, through time spent on remand, served the equivalent of her entire sentence; the Respondent therefore withdrew the European arrest warrant and the courts ordered her discharge. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court proceeded to determine the certified questions because of inconsistent approaches within the King’s Bench Division.

Legal Issues Presented

1. When deciding whether extradition under a conviction warrant would constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights, what weight (if any) may a United Kingdom court give to the possibility that the requesting Polish court might exercise its discretionary powers under Articles 77, 78, 80 and 82 of the Polish Penal Code to grant early release on licence?
2. To what extent, if at all, should a United Kingdom court attempt to evaluate the likely merits of a future or pending application for such early release?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The remaining custodial term is directly relevant to proportionality; potential early release may significantly shorten that term.
• UK extradition judges routinely form “educated predictions” about early release, and should do so here.
• The Appellant’s personal circumstances make her a favourable candidate for early release under Polish law.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Early release in Poland is a purely discretionary “act of grace”; only Polish courts are competent to assess it.
• UK courts are ill-equipped to predict Polish judicial decisions; any attempt would be speculative and contrary to international comity.
• At most, the mere existence of an early-release regime is a minor factor that carries little weight in the Article 8 balance.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

Five Judges (led by Judge Lloyd-Jones and Judge Stephens) addressed three competing approaches identified by Judge Swift:

• Option One – ignore early-release possibilities entirely. Rejected as unrealistic.
• Option Three – make a predictive assessment of the likelihood, timing and terms of early release and, if favourable, give it significant weight. Rejected because (a) it is speculative; (b) it breaches international comity by usurping Polish judicial functions; and (c) UK courts cannot impose Polish licence conditions or probation, which are public-interest safeguards.
• Option Two – acknowledge the existence of the discretion but attach only “little weight,” save in the rare case where overwhelming, uncontested evidence shows early release is virtually certain, its timing known, and public-interest safeguards unaffected.

The Court emphasised:

• The high and constant public interest in honouring extradition, rooted in reciprocity and crime prevention.
• The discretionary Polish regime under Article 77 requires nuanced, multi-factorial assessments best undertaken by Polish judges applying Polish standards.
• UK judges typically lack sufficient information about Polish sentencing philosophy, recidivism assessment, public-policy considerations or licence-condition practice to make reliable predictions.
• Recognising early-release possibilities remains permissible as a minor factor, but, without truly exceptional evidence, it cannot materially tip the Article 8 balance.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Supreme Court endorses “option two.” In conviction-warrant cases involving discretionary early-release regimes, United Kingdom courts should recognise the mere possibility of early release but ordinarily give it little weight in the Article 8 proportionality assessment. Detailed prediction of foreign early-release outcomes is appropriate only in rare cases supported by overwhelming and uncontested evidence.

Although the Appellant was already discharged, the ruling resolves conflicting first-instance authority and provides clear guidance for future extradition cases. It reinforces the primacy of international comity, clarifies that speculative assessment of foreign sentencing discretions is inappropriate, and signals that Article 8 arguments will succeed only where interference with family life is exceptionally severe. No new cause of action was created, but the decision standardises the judicial approach across the jurisdiction.