Application for leave to appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 by Krzysztof Romanik against The Lord Advocate for the Polish Judicial Authority (High Court of Justiciary) [2026] HCJAC 15 (06 May 2026)

Executive summary

The High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court considered Krzysztof Romanik’s application for leave to appeal against an Edinburgh Sheriff Court order extraditing him to Poland under the Extradition Act 2003. The appeal application was grounded on alleged disproportionality under section 21A, oppression or injustice on health grounds under section 25, and an Article 8 ECHR challenge, all arising from an outstanding Polish sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.

Key points

• Appellant: Krzysztof Romanik; respondent: The Lord Advocate for the Polish Judicial Authority.
• Background: extradition ordered on 16 October 2025 to enforce an outstanding Polish cumulative sentence imposed on 7 August 2020.
• Arguments raised: section 21A proportionality, section 25 mental/physical health, and Article 8 ECHR.
• The source text states the sheriff found the public interest in extradition outweighed the appellant’s private/family-life claims, and that extradition was not oppressive on the facts presented.
• The Lord Advocate argued section 21A applied only to persons accused of an offence, not to this appellant, and that the section 25 threshold was not met.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent on the face of the judgment; this is an extradition/appeal decision rather than a sanctions or export-controls case.

Why it matters

For sanctions and national-security monitoring, the decision shows the Scottish courts applying a high threshold to resist extradition where the request is from an EU judicial authority and the person is already serving or owing a criminal sentence. It is more relevant to cross-border enforcement posture and fugitive-risk than to sanctions law specifically.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case reinforces that Article 8, health, and family-assistance arguments will face a strong public-interest presumption in extradition proceedings, especially where the requested person has prior knowledge of the proceedings and the sentence is outstanding. There is no sanctions-control rule change here, but the decision underscores the need to document any truly exceptional humanitarian evidence early if resisting surrender.