Sawicki v Circuit Law Court in Swidnica: remand credit, multiple warrants and the limits of article 8 in extradition

The High Court has dismissed an extradition appeal brought by Tomasz Sawicki, a Polish national sought by the Circuit Law Court in Swidnica on three arrest warrants relating to dishonesty offences committed between 2000 and 2005. The judgement, however, grants partial relief: the court discharged Sawicki in respect of all remaining decisions under Arrest Warrant 2 (AW2), finding that his remand time in the United Kingdom had extinguished those penalties entirely.

Sawicki was arrested in Bristol on 18 April 2023 and has remained in custody since. The three warrants comprised two conviction warrants (AW1 and AW2) and one accusation warrant (AW3). The combined material penalties across all warrants amounted to 3 years, 10 months and 14 days. AW2 itself covered three separate decisions arising from offending between 2000 and 2002, with remaining terms of one month 29 days, 18 months, and 11 months 16 days respectively. AW1 related to four non-domestic burglaries committed in 2005 while Sawicki was subject to a suspended sentence.

The district judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court had already discharged Sawicki on AW2 Decision 1, concluding that remand time exceeded that penalty. He ordered extradition on AW1, AW2 Decisions 2 and 3, and AW3. Permission to appeal was ultimately granted on article 8 grounds only, following the Supreme Court's decision in Andrysiewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23.

The Multiple Offences Order point

Central to the appeal was the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003. The parties agreed that, applying remand credit sequentially and without double-counting, the AW2 penalties were fully extinguished as of 13 February 2026, leaving a remaining AW1 custodial term of 1 year 3 months and 17 days.

The respondent argued the point was purely academic — whatever warrant fell away, over 15 months of custody remained. Dias J rejected that characterisation. The proper application of the legal framework required discharge on AW2 Decisions 2 and 3 regardless of the practical consequence. The court drew on the approach in Marosan v Romania [2022] 1 WLR 1759 and the principles in JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Lodz-Srodmiescie (Case C-294/16 PPU), which ground the deduction obligation in the right to liberty and proportionality of sanctions under the EU Charter.

Article 8 balancing

On article 8, the court acknowledged a genuine and substantial interference with Sawicki's private and family life. He had been in a stable relationship since 2005, had not reoffended since December 2011, and the district judge had found him rehabilitated. Significant institutional delay by UK authorities — for which no explanation was offered — reduced the weight of the public interest to a degree.

Nevertheless, the fugitivity finding on AW1 was unimpeachable and proved determinative. Sawicki had relocated to the UK in September 2005 without informing Polish authorities, breached supervision conditions and court orders in both jurisdictions, and actively placed himself beyond the reach of Polish justice. Dias J observed that the respondent had pursued extradition with evident seriousness and had not simply allowed proceedings to lapse.

Drawing on Andrysiewicz (paras 42–43), the court reiterated that article 8 defeats extradition only in cases of exceptionally severe impact on family life. The impact on Sawicki's partner — while genuinely difficult — did not approach that threshold. The remaining custodial term of over 15 months represented more than 300 per cent of the statutory minimum for a valid extradition offence, and the public interest in extradition, comity, and rule of law carried decisive weight.

The extradition order in respect of AW2 was quashed and Sawicki discharged on those decisions. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. Extradition to Poland is ordered under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 in respect of AW1 and AW3.

Copyright & permissions