Stuu: British YouTube star to be extradited to Poland over child sex allegations

An English YouTube star who became famous playing Minecraft online will be extradited to Poland to face allegations of child sex 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 sexual 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.

Setting out the background 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”.

Through his various channels, which initially focused on videos about the popular video game Minecraft, he gained millions of viewers. His fame eventually lead to roles in the Polish language dubbing of blockbuster The Emoji Movie.

However, he withdrew from his online activity, moving back to the UK support his Luton-based mother, who has cancer.

Accusations about him began circulating online around 2023, as part 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.”

Kluz-Burton’s arrest by Interpol, the global network which connects police forces across the world, came only 10 days later, the day before the parliamentary elections in Poland.

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.

It meant that the extradition arrest warrant was not issued by a “judicial authority” for the purpose of the Extradition Act 2003, they complained.

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.”

They said that the arguments did not “provide a basis for suggesting any lack of independence in this case” and rejected Kluz-Burton’s appeal.