Kalamarz v Regional Court In Opole Poland

On an appeal against an extradition order, grounds not raised before the district judge will not ordinarily be permitted where they are unsupported by evidence. This applies to reliance on the statutory bar concerning physical or mental condition under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and to an Article 8 Convention rights argument. The court may hear the appeal in the appellant’s absence where notice has been properly given and the circumstances make that course just.

A European Arrest Warrant was issued by a Polish regional court for the appellant’s extradition to serve the balance of a sentence for fraud offences. His extradition was ordered at an uncontested hearing before a district judge. On appeal, he argued for the first time that extradition would be unjust or oppressive because of his physical or mental condition and would breach Article 8. He did not attend the appeal hearing and was no longer represented, although notice had been given. The central issues were whether the appeal could proceed in his absence and whether the new grounds should be entertained.

1. The appeal was properly heard in the appellant’s absence. The court was satisfied that he was not detained at HMP Wandsworth, as had been mistakenly assumed, and that the solicitors who had represented him had notified him of the hearing. In those circumstances, it was just to proceed without him.
2. The grounds based on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 had not been raised before the district judge. Applying Szombathely City Court & Ors v Fenyvesi & Anor [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), there was no reason to permit them to be advanced for the first time on appeal, particularly as they were unsupported by any evidence.
3. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appellant appealed against an extradition order made at an uncontested hearing on 10 November 2012. The appeal was dismissed.