27 February 2025 Sean Mosby 778 Case Updates Krzysztof Lukasik v Circuit Court, Praga in Warsaw (A Polish Judicial Authority) [2025] EWHC 282 (Admin) bySean Mosby Summary While the Judge in this extradition appeal ultimately reached the same conclusion as the District Court Judge, and dismissed the appeal, he pointed out significant deficiencies in how the District Court Judge had treated the expert psychological evidence. Learning points Judicial criticism is not always justified, as in this case where the appeal Judge found that the District Court Judge did not give appropriate weight to the expert’s reasoned, expert and unchallenged opinion. The court must have a reasonable basis for substituting its own view in the place of unchallenged expert evidence. Getting the basics rights, e.g. declaration and statement of truth, clearly setting out your relevant experience, is the foundation of your credibility. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Extradition11. Report Writing16. Criticism and ComplaintsChild Psychologist Related articles An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to the court The diagnosis hang-up and cardiological manifestations of PTSD Setting The Goal Posts in Expert Determination Cases For “Manifest Error” Exceptions Expert suggests Google would probably give the court a better answer than him A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness Switch article Undisplaced spiral right humeral fracture – accidental or non-accidental? Previous Article An approach entirely contradictory to the duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses identified in The Ikarian Reefer Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.