Wawrzyczek v District Court In Bielsko-Biala, Poland

An extradition appeal under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires proof to the criminal standard that the requested person deliberately absented himself from an initiated trial process. Personal service of a summons, and knowledge of the proceedings, are material. Evidence obtained after the magistrates’ hearing should be admitted on appeal where there is a good reason why it was not previously available and it may materially affect the result. Where the evidence does not establish personal service or deliberate absence, extradition is barred if the requested person is not entitled to a retrial.

The appellant challenged a decision of District Judge Ikram at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning three fraud offences. The District Judge rejected challenges based on dual criminality, retrial rights, passage of time and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Permission to appeal was granted on dual criminality, retrial rights and passage of time. The appellant also renewed an application concerning section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and sought to raise an Article 8 ground. The central issue was whether he had deliberately absented himself from the Polish trial process so that section 20 did not bar extradition.

1. Fresh evidence. The District Judge had wrongly refused to admit weekly wage slips supplied after the hearing. The slips had not been available at the hearing, the appellant had explained why they were being produced late, and they might materially influence the result. They were therefore admitted on appeal, applying Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin).
2. Section 20. The proper interpretation of section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, as stated in Podlas v Koszalin District Court, Poland [2015] EWHC 908 (Admin), requires an initiated trial process and proof to the criminal standard that the requested person deliberately absented himself from it. A person cannot deliberately absent himself without knowledge that the process is taking place or is about to begin.
3. The wage slips made it impossible to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the second summons had been personally served on 9 November 2006. That finding materially undermined the District Judge’s credibility assessment concerning the first summons. There was also no supporting evidence from the requesting authority that either summons had been personally served.
4. The court was not satisfied that either summons had been served or that the appellant’s absence from trial was deliberate. It was common ground that he would not be entitled to a retrial if returned. His extradition was therefore barred by section 20.
5. The appeal was allowed. It was unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds, the renewed section 2 application or the proposed Article 8 ground.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 29 May 2015, District Judge Ikram ordered extradition to Poland and rejected the appellant’s statutory and Article 8 challenges.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed because section 20 barred extradition.