Ossowski v Regional Court in Slupsk, Poland

An extradition appeal should be dismissed where the appellant accepts that no proper argument can be advanced in support of the pleaded grounds and invites dismissal. The court need not determine the underlying delay or Article 8 issues when the appeal is not pursued.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The grounds concerned delay and the compatibility of extradition with his Article 8 rights.

The District Judge had found that the appellant was a fugitive, that extradition would not be unjust or oppressive, and that it would not disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights. Before the High Court, the appellant accepted that no proper argument could be advanced on either ground and invited dismissal of the appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Counsel for the appellant accepted that no proper argument could be advanced in support of either ground of appeal and invited the court to dismiss it. The respondent agreed.
2. The High Court therefore did not need to determine the substantive issues concerning passage of time, the fugitive bar, whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive, or Article 8 proportionality.
3. The District Judge’s findings were recorded as the basis of the decision under appeal: the appellant was a fugitive; alternatively, he had not shown that extradition would be unjust or oppressive; and extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed after the appellant accepted that no proper argument could be advanced.
2. District Judge: On 5 December 2014, ordered the appellant’s extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant.