Snieg v District Court In Bydgoszcz

Fresh evidence on an extradition appeal should be admitted only where it was unavailable at the extradition hearing and would have been decisive. Evidence is unavailable only if it did not then exist, or was not at the party’s disposal and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. A Human Rights label does not relax that strict threshold.

The effect of extradition on a fugitive’s partner or children will rarely justify refusing extradition. A partner’s alleged suicide risk cannot place the fugitive in a better legal position than the fugitive’s own suicide risk, for which a very high probability of a successful attempt is required.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Purdy that he be extradited to Poland on a conviction warrant. He sought an adjournment to obtain psychiatric evidence about his former wife and current partner, Mrs Lignman, and evidence about the effect on their 12-year-old son.

The evidence had not been placed before the District Judge. The central questions were whether it was admissible as fresh evidence and whether, if admitted, it could realistically affect the extradition decision. The court also noted, but did not decide, an issue concerning late service of the appeal notice.

1. Adjournment refused. The proposed evidence failed both limbs of the strict fresh-evidence test.
2. Under the guidance in The Szombathely City Court v Fenyvasi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), evidence is unavailable where it did not exist at the extradition hearing, or was not at the party’s disposal and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The appellant knew, or should have known, his partner’s condition and the family concerns when instructing lawyers.
3. The evidence was not decisive. The effect of extradition on a fugitive’s partner or children is very rarely a reason to prevent extradition. The alleged suicide risk was speculative, and the evidence did not meet the high threshold required.
4. A partner’s suicide risk could not put the fugitive in a better legal position than the fugitive’s own suicide risk, for which a very high probability of a successful attempt was required.
5. No other substantive ground was pursued. It was unnecessary to decide whether service of the notice was in time. Even assuming timely service, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s costs were subject to legal aid assessment.

1. District Judge Purdy: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): refused an adjournment to obtain fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal. The late-service issue was left undecided.