Clarissa Rodio, instructed by Shaikh Solicitors, secured the discharge of her client’s extradition to Poland.
The Requested Person was sought by Poland on an accusation warrant for four offences arising from a complex VAT fraud in which he was President of the Management Board of two companies, which had its headquarters in Poland. The VAT loss was £7.5 million. In respect of each offence, the Requested Person was charged with tax fraud and intellectual fraud between 2012 and 2013.
Clarissa argued that the Requested Person’s extradition would be oppressive within the meaning of section 14 on the passage of time given the period of delay in issuing the arrest warrant and the change in circumstances from the date of the original offending. She subsequently raised her client’s physical and mental condition pursuant to section 25, namely that extradition would be oppressive on the basis that he suffers from an aggressive type of cancer as well as advanced renal disease.
Clarissa finally submitted that, considering all the circumstances, extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with her client’s private and family life under Article 8 ECHR.
DJ Minhas ordered the Requested Person’s discharge under section 11(3), section 25(3)(a) and section 21(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.