AC-2024-LON-002545 - [2025] EWHC 2948 (Admin)

I can take much of the background from the recital given by the District Judge although I have included some further details of the events surrounding the alleged offences which I was taken to by Mr Summers KC for the appellants.

On 29^th November 2021, AM was last seen in Slough. AM was subsequently classified as a missing person until April 2022 when Thames Valley Police began a homicide investigation into his disappearance. The investigation suggested that the victim died at an address in Slough where he had been living with AP. Also living at the address, 68 Greystoke Road, were AP's partner Kamila Wojcik (KW) and Adrian Nikiel (AN). TW was an associate of AP and would regularly visit the flat. All are Polish nationals who were resident in the UK at the time.

The police recovered CCTV from an address which was opposite 68 Greystoke Road. AM was last seen returning to the address at 14.38 on 29^th November 2021. AM’s son, Marcin Mucha (MM), alleged that he was assaulted at another address in Slough at some point between 15.34 and 16.30 on 29^th November by the appellants in the presence of KW and her daughter. MM also alleged that the appellants had assaulted him previously. At 17.33 on 29^th November, AM’s daughter, PM, spoke to AM on the telephone. He said he knew that MM had been assaulted.

During the evening, CCTV showed that the appellants, KW and her daughter, AN and AM were present at 68 Greystoke Road. At 20.06, AM telephoned PM. This is the last contact anyone outside the house had with him. PM called him back at 20.10 but his telephone was answered by someone giving the name Adrian.

On 2^nd December 2021, Norbert Kukla (NK) drove his van to 68 Greystoke Road. The appellants said that they wanted his help to remove a dead dog from the premises. NK did not see what was put in the back of his van by the appellants but he drove to a woodland area under their direction. They removed something from the van. He then left as they said they would get a taxi back. NK subsequently tried to show the police where he had stopped but was unable to be certain about the area.

There has been no sign of AM since the evening of 29^th November 2021. His body has not been found.

By the time the homicide investigation began in April 2022, KW and AN had left England and returned to Poland. TW was arrested in July 2022 and AP was arrested in January 2023 by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of murder and preventing a lawful burial. Both were bailed pending police enquiries. There was insufficient evidence to establish how the victim died or who was responsible. TW and AP were subsequently charged on 31^st January 2023 and 27^th January 2023 respectively with preventing the lawful burial (PLB) of AM and perverting the course of justice (PCJ) on the grounds that they had concealed a murder.

A separate investigation into the circumstances of AM’s death began in Poland between July 2022 and November 2022, resulting in KW and AN being called for interview in January 2023. During interviews with the Polish authorities, KW and AN implicated TW as the person responsible for AM’s death. TW and AP were also said to have assaulted AM at a time before the incident which resulted in AM's death. The Polish authorities informed Thames and Chiltern Crown Prosecution Service (TCCPS) that the interview accounts given by KW and AN would be admissible against TW and AP in Poland. However, they also indicated that if proceedings against KW concluded, she could not be compelled to give evidence against AP due to their previous relationship.

On 20^th February 2023, the JA issued an order in Poland for TW and AP’s temporary arrest and detention for periods of three months and 30 days respectively. The European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) were issued on 28^th February 2023 and 3^rd April 2023. TW and AP were arrested on the EAWs on 16^th May 2023 and appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on the same day for their initial hearing. At the hearing, the proceedings were opened and adjourned pursuant to s8 of the 2003 Act.

At the time of the EAWs, TW and AP were in custody to the Reading Crown Court pursuant to the charges of (a) preventing AM’s lawful burial and (b) perverting the course of justice on the grounds that they had concealed the murder of AM, including by disposing of the body. The trial was listed to commence before a High Court judge in October 2023.

The Crown Prosecution Service undertook concurrent jurisdiction discussions with Poland. As a result of those discussions, a decision was made to cede jurisdiction to Poland where KW and AN had been arrested and charged with an equivalent offence of perverting the course of justice and other offences linked to the death of AM. The purpose of this was to enable a joint trial in Poland for all four co-accused for offences arising out of AM’s murder.

The warrant for TW relates to two offences:

The warrant for AP relates to two offences:

The District Judge summarised further information from Poland served on 7^th July 2024 as follows:

An expert witness, Mikolaj Pietrzak, was called on behalf of the appellants in the lower court. He gave evidence about the trial process in Poland, some of which the District Judge summarised as follows:

“Mr Pietrak (sic) explained that if both TW and AP were extradited, based on his experience and knowledge, they would most likely be tried with KW and AN especially as they refer to the same act or acts committed in joint cooperation between the defendants.

The investigation of KW and AN was suspended on the 5th of March 2024, after the prosecutor could not be sure how long these proceedings would take. KW and AN were released from pre-trial detention as a result. The prosecutor has the ability to try them separately, however Mr Pietrak does not know what evidence the prosecution have, but assuming they have sufficient evidence they could try them separately. Instead, they have chosen to suspend the investigation.

In the event that TW and AP were tried at the same time and in one joint trial with the other co-defendants, all the evidence would be joined into one case file. This means that all the collected evidence referring to all of the accused would be used and assessed in this joint trial, and it would include any evidence given by co-defendants of TW and AP.

There are no legal obstacles to the use of such co-defendants evidence against TW and AP. The assessment of the admissibility of evidence belongs to the adjudicating court. It should be noted that such assessment does not require any special procedure and decision that evidence is inadmissible hardly occurs.”

Six issues were argued for the appellants in the lower court. Four of them are no longer pursued. The hearing lasted for three days. The District Judge was presented with a large number of different arguments which she resolved in a reserved judgment, extending over 81 pages. She evidently gave all the matters very careful attention.

Mr Summers now renews two of the arguments which he advanced in the court below and which he says the District Judge resolved incorrectly. He submits that extradition is barred by reason of forum in accordance with s19B of the 2003 Act. He also submits that extradition would be an abuse of the extradition process because the Polish and UK authorities have engaged in “forum shopping”.

Mr Summers crystalised the alleged abuse of process for the District Judge as follows:

“TCCPS thought the evidence of KW and AN would be outright inadmissible under UK law, and jurisdiction was ceded because of that belief. Poland and TCCPS have brought about a situation (cede jurisdiction to Poland) designed to expose TW and AP to prosecution and conviction based on evidence which it knew would not be tolerated by any UK court. In other words, the Polish authorities and TCCPS were seeking to circumvent UK law by finding a more favourable jurisdiction which would permit such hearsay evidence.”

I should record that at an earlier stage Mr Summers had applied to the District Judge for a witness summons pursuant to s97 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 in an effort to obtain documents relating to the process by which the decision was taken to discontinue the domestic prosecution so as to allow the extradition proceedings to go forward.

In the event, the District Judge refused the application and her refusal was upheld by the Divisional Court – see R (on the application of Tomasz Weiss and Adrian Pietraszewski) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2024] EWHC 1256 (Admin).

I ought to make some reference to the judgment of Julian Knowles J in the Divisional Court with which Bean LJ agreed. He referred to a submission made by Mr Summers to the effect that the Crown Prosecution Service had misled the Crown Court at Reading in correspondence. This concerns the existence (or not) of a bar on Poland extraditing its own nationals to the UK. Julian Knowles J said this:

“24.

In the court below, it was said that [TCCPS] had misled the Reading Crown Court about the existence of this bar when, in correspondence on 31 March 2023 in connection with the then extant domestic prosecutions of [the appellants], the bar was mentioned and it was said Poland would not extradite the two co-accused in Poland and, hence, that there could not be a trial of all four co-accused in the UK. A Senior Crown Prosecutor wrote:

“A joint meeting was held between the Polish and UK prosecution and investigative teams with a view to establishing the most appropriate venue for the joint trial of all 4 defendants. There is currently an extradition bar from Poland to the UK which means that however we end up, we do not currently anticipate any trial here of all four defendants.”

25.

[The appellants] maintained that the bar had never existed and that the CPS assertion was wrong and misleading. Paragraph 19 of their Skeleton Argument before the district judge argued:

“To remind, the defence case under Tollman abuse [R (Tollman) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2007] 1 WLR 1157] is that Poland worked with [TCCPS] to procure the 2023 [TCCPS] decision to cede jurisdiction over an ongoing Crown Court trial via …. and which was brought about by Poland and/or [TCCPS] having misled the Crown Court into believing Polish law did not allow the extradition of the co-accused [KW] and [AN] to the UK.”

26.

They relied on expert evidence of Polish law.

27.

[TCCPS’s] position is as follows. The decision to discontinue the domestic prosecution was taken by it on 29 June 2023. Prior to that, as the 31 March 2023 letter indicated, there had been meetings and communications involving Eurojust (the EU’s Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation), the CPS, Polish prosecutors and the police about the case. The CPS’ understanding as set out to Reading Crown Court in March 2023 was based on a notification made by Poland in April 2021 under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the UK and the EU, and notified to the UK by the EU that month. This was reflected in internal CPS guidance and memoranda prior to this case, which stated that the nationality bar was in force.

28.

By the time that the decision to discontinue was taken in June 2023, it was known to the CPS from internal guidance that the bar was to be removed in August 2023. On 26 July 2023 Poland (through the EU) notified the UK of a partial withdrawal of the notification that its nationals would not be extradited, with effect from 3 August 2023. The CPS’s guidance on nationality bars for EU member states, as updated at 15 August 2023, states in relation to Poland, ‘No bar. Absolute bar previously in place was lifted 3 August 2023’.

29.

[TCCPS] therefore says that the position as set out to Reading Crown Court in March 2023 was correct.”

At para 41 of his judgment, Julian Knowles J set out part of a letter written for the purposes of s19B(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 [prosecutor’s belief statement] on behalf of the CPS by Mr Gregor McGill. At para 42, Julian Knowles J said this:

“In light of this very full document (and its equivalent in [AP’s] case), in my judgment it is clear why the CPS took the decision to discontinue the domestic proceedings against [the appellants]. Although they could be prosecuted here for lesser offences, there was insufficient evidence to charge them with homicide or violence offences. The Full Code Test was not met for these. To prosecute them for those lesser offences could put in jeopardy their prosecution in Poland for those more serious offences, where the relevant evidence would be admissible. Thus for that reason, and the other reasons given, the decision had been taken to discontinue the prosecutions here in the public interest.

43.

I am bound to observe that given Mr McGill’s seniority and the extensive briefing he had obviously received before he prepared his statements, it is difficult to see what a record of the actual decision taken at the CPS meeting on 29 June 2023 would or could have added.”

Julian Knowles J concluded (at para 82) that the material sought had no proper role to play in the evaluation of the matters specified in s19B(3). He said that Mr McGill had given a very full explanation of why the decision had been taken and that the District Judge would have to decide whether or not it amounted to an abuse of process.