Hodurek v Poland: Extradition upheld despite partner's multiple sclerosis care needs

The Administrative Court has dismissed an appeal against extradition where a Polish national who fled to evade imprisonment argued that his return would cause disproportionate interference with his family life due to his role as carer for his partner with multiple sclerosis.

Piotr Hodurek, 45, has lived in the United Kingdom since 2006 with settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme. Poland seeks his return to serve a two-and-a-half-year sentence imposed in 2006 for 12 theft offences committed between 2001 and 2005. District Judge Cieciora ordered extradition in April 2023, a decision Mr Justice Mould has now upheld.

Fugitive status established

The District Judge found to the criminal standard that Mr Hodurek deliberately placed himself beyond Polish legal processes. His sentence was upheld on appeal in October 2006 whilst represented by counsel. He departed for the UK the following month and failed to surrender to prison in December 2006 despite an order to do so. A police notice issued in October 2007 did not locate him until 2022.

The court rejected his evidence that he left Poland unaware of the appeal outcome, noting the implausibility of receiving no communication from his lawyer and the suspicious timing of his departure.

Fresh evidence of deteriorating condition

Mr Hodurek's principal ground of appeal concerned his caring responsibilities for his partner, Ms Karolina Kepka, who suffers from MS. He sought to adduce fresh evidence showing marked deterioration in her condition since April 2023. By October 2025, she experienced severe lower back pain, severely limited mobility requiring crutches, and had ceased working. Medical evidence confirmed progressive disc bulge and referrals for pain management. She had been awarded personal independence payments at standard rate for daily living and mobility needs until May 2030.

Legal framework applied

The court applied the Fenyvesi test for fresh evidence, requiring both unavailability at the original hearing and potential to alter the decision. Mr Justice Mould emphasised the Supreme Court's recent restatement in Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] UKSC 23 that cases defeating extradition on Article 8 grounds will be rare, succeeding only where interference with family life reaches exceptional severity. Where a requested person is a fugitive, very strong counter-balancing factors are required.

Impact assessment

Whilst accepting Ms Kepka's deterioration and acknowledging she would suffer considerable hardship and emotional distress, the court found the impact would not be exceptionally severe. She would continue receiving personal independence payments, retain access to NHS care, could apply for appropriate care packages from public and charitable providers, and would benefit from friends' support.

Delay and proportionality

The court rejected submissions that delay by Polish authorities diminished the public interest in extradition. Following Pabian v Circuit Court in Warsawa, Poland [2024] EWHC 2431 (Admin), when an issuing state seeks an individual who has fled without indicating whereabouts, no obligation exists to devote resources to enquiries. The delay was largely attributable to Mr Hodurek's fugitive actions.

Weighing heavily for extradition were the strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements, the appellant's fugitive status, and the need to serve a substantial sentence for persistent dishonesty. The UK must not be perceived as a safe haven for fugitives.

Against extradition, the court acknowledged the offences occurred over 20 years ago and the appellant had lived respectably in the UK, though his fugitive status rendered this life tenuous. The impact on Ms Kepka, whilst considerable and requiring significant weight, did not reach the exceptional threshold required under Andrysiewicz.

The appeal was dismissed, with Mr Justice Mould concluding that neither criticisms of the District Judge's reasoning nor the fresh evidence justified finding her proportionality assessment wrong.

Copyright & permissions