Janaszek v Polish Judicial Authority District Court of Poland

In extradition proceedings, bail may be refused where there is substantial reason to believe that the requested person would fail to answer to bail and thereby thwart or avoid extradition. The court must assess whether proposed conditions genuinely reduce that risk. Relevant matters include the strength of the incentive to abscond, the nature of the alleged offending, access to documents capable of assisting evasion, and personal circumstances such as responsibility for children. Personal hardship may be taken into account, but sparse or incomplete evidence will carry limited weight.

The appellant was wanted in Poland and was subject to extradition proceedings. She had made several unsuccessful bail applications before the magistrates’ court. She applied to the Administrative Court for bail approximately 14 days before the substantive extradition hearing.

The proposed conditions included security of £5,000, residence, electronic monitoring and reporting. The central issue was whether those conditions sufficiently reduced the risk that she would abscond and fail to participate in the extradition process.

1. Application refused. The court was satisfied that there was substantial reason to believe that, if released on bail, the appellant would not answer to it. The risk was sufficient to justify refusing bail.
2. The court considered the appellant’s substantial motive to avoid extradition. That motive had never been concealed. The alleged offending included numerous offences involving forged documents, and she had been convicted in Poland of theft of another person’s identity card. Those matters created a real possibility that she could obtain or use documentation to avoid detection if she decided not to participate in the process.
3. The proposed conditions—security, residence, electronic monitoring and reporting—would not minimise the flight risk to a proper extent. The fact that the appellant’s children were being cared for by elderly parents was relevant, but the information available about that hardship was remarkably sketchy and insufficient to justify bail at that stage.
4. The court observed that, if bail were sought again after an extradition order, the magistrates’ court could be given fuller information about the difficulties faced by the elderly parents. That observation did not amount to an indication that bail would then be appropriate.

The judgment records that the appellant had made several unsuccessful bail applications before the magistrates’ court. The Administrative Court refused the present application.