Grabowski, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Wloclaw Poland

Bail may properly be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would reoffend or abscond. The court must assess those risks in the context of the applicant’s convictions, outstanding sentences, alleged further offending, compliance history and conduct while in the jurisdiction. Proposed conditions are inadequate where they do not sufficiently address the identified risks. The applicant’s family circumstances, including the existence of a very young child, do not outweigh substantial risks of reoffending and absconding.

The claimant appealed against the refusal of bail while facing proceedings connected with Poland. He had previous Polish convictions, outstanding sentences and an European arrest warrant relating to further serious alleged offences. During his time in the United Kingdom he had acquired a significant offending record and had repeatedly breached community orders and similar requirements.

The central issue was whether the proposed bail conditions adequately addressed the risks that he would reoffend or abscond, having regard also to his wish to see his very young child.

1. The appeal was refused. The court also refused to grant bail.
2. There were substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would reoffend if released on bail. That conclusion was reached from the overall context, including his previous convictions in Poland, outstanding Polish sentences, serious alleged further offences, offending in the United Kingdom and repeated breaches of community orders and similar measures.
3. There were also substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would abscond. The existence of outstanding sentences in Poland was capable of indicating that he had previously left Poland to avoid serving them.
4. The proposed conditions did not begin to suffice to address those risks. The claimant’s wish to see his new child did not alter the assessment. The child was extremely young and in care, so temporary separation was not considered likely to cause psychological harm.
5. A legal aid representation order was granted.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): refused the appeal and refused bail. The decision appealed from is not identified in the judgment.