Tuesday, July 21, 2026 -A British YouTube star who became famous playing Minecraft online will be extradited to Poland to face allegations of child s£x crimes.
Stuart Kluz-Burton, who is known online as Stuu, posts
gaming, lifestyle and comedy-based videos. He has 4.1 million followers on
YouTube and 1.8 million on Instagram.
The London-born influencer, 34, is alleged to have abused
minors in Poland. He faces two charges of s£xual activity with girls aged under
15 and two charges of inducing minors to drink alcohol.
He was initially ordered for extradition by a judge in
February 2025, but appealed the ruling.
Last week, the High Court upheld the original order, ruling
that he will be sent to Poland.
In a joint judgment, Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice
Johnson said that Kluz-Burton was born in the UK and holds dual British-Polish
citizenship.
He spent most of his life in Britain, before moving to
Poland in 2014 and beginning his YouTube career.
He became well-known online firstly under the name “Polish
Penguin” and then “Stuu”.
However, he withdrew from his online activity, moving back
to the UK to support his Luton-based mother, who has cancer.
Accusations about him began circulating online around 2023,
as part of what the judges described as a “wider scandal” in Poland known as
“Pandora Gate”.
The allegations of sexual activity with girls under 15
relate to an alleged incident in the summer of 2015 with one complainant, and
another in August 2018.
The alleged offences of inducing a minor to drink alcohol
are said to have taken place in August 2018, involving two girls, including the
alleged victim of the second sex crime.
According to the Polish arrest warrant, the maximum penalty
for the offences is 12 years' imprisonment.
Kluz-Burton was arrested at his home in October 2023 and, after a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, his extradition was approved by a judge.
However, he challenged the decision, arguing that there was evidence that the Polish judge who initially signed the warrant was potentially under political pressure.
On the same day that the allegations were brought to the
attention of the Polish prosecutor, then-Polish prime minister Mateusz
Morawiecki had published a video statement about the wider scandal.
In it, he said: “We heard the story of a man who used his
fame achieved on the internet to harm minors… These are behaviours of deviants,
and we will do our best to eradicate it as efficiently as possible... I ordered
appropriate services to deal with it, and I am expecting quick actions in this
subject.”
Recounting Kluz-Burton's arguments, the judges said his
barrister Joel Smith KC had argued that the case cannot be treated as an
ordinary request arising from ordinary allegations because the circumstances
show there was “real political significance” at the time of the decision of the
Polish judge who signed the warrant, Judge Lubowski.
“The prosecution was initiated and accelerated in the days
immediately preceding a national election, senior executive figures made
repeated public statements about the allegations and demanded quick action on
bringing a prosecution,” Kluz-Burton's lawyers had argued.
But dismissing his appeal, the High Court judges said: “The
fact is that this is a routine criminal investigation as opposed to an
investigation that is inherently political.
“It has achieved a high profile because of the nature of the
allegations, their appearance on social media and Mr Kluz-Burton’s fame.
“For those reasons it entered social media discourse. That
high profile, and the publicity that was given to the allegations and the
investigation, meant that there was a need for the court to act quickly.
“The allegations emerged shortly before political elections.
Politicians sought to make political capital out of them, but by making
statements that were directed at the public, the police and prosecutors, not
the court.
“Viewed cumulatively, it has not been shown on appeal that
the (magistrates court) judge’s conclusion was wrong, and that he ought to have
found that Judge Lubowski may not have been independent and impartial.
“The judge engaged with each of the arguments in support of
the proposition that there was the potential for political interference.
“He recognised that the statements made by senior
politicians were 'a real matter of concern' and a 'striking feature' and that
they were made in the context of a highly contested election.
“He nevertheless concluded...that, taken at their highest,
they were directed to the investigation and prosecution of the allegations
rather than to the court, and that they 'did not amount to any form of pressure
on the court to act in a particular way', thus embracing the risk of influence
test.
“Mr Smith says that conclusion is irrational. We disagree.
The judge was entitled to reach that conclusion for the reasons he gave.
“Nothing in the statements was explicitly or implicitly
directed to any judge or court. None of them contained any implicit threat to
take disciplinary action against any judge or risk of such action.
“Some of the statements explicitly recognised that Mr
Kluz-Burton’s guilt or innocence was yet to be determined and none of them
sought to pre-judge that issue.”
0 Comments