Trocha, R (on the application of) v District Court in Legnica, Poland

For the purposes of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, deliberate absence concerns absence from the specific trial at which the person was required to appear. Leaving the relevant jurisdiction, or awareness of criminal proceedings generally, is insufficient without evidence directed to that trial. The issue is fact-sensitive. The extradition judge may rely on proper service, the person’s obligations to keep authorities informed, previous attendance, conduct after service and credibility. The judicial authority bears the burden of proving deliberate absence beyond reasonable doubt. An appellate court should respect the extradition judge’s factual assessment where the minimum evidential threshold has been met.

Waldemar Trocha challenged the Westminster Magistrates’ Court decision ordering his extradition to Poland under three European Arrest Warrants. The challenge concerned only a conviction warrant relating to offences committed in 2009. The central issue was whether the District Judge was entitled to find that Mr Trocha had deliberately absented himself from the trial, so that section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 was satisfied.

The District Judge found that the summons had been properly served at Mr Trocha’s registered address through his mother, that he knew of the trial process, and that his evidence was not credible. Mr Trocha argued that the evidence did not establish knowledge of the specific hearing.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the District Judge was entitled to conclude that Mr Trocha had deliberately absented himself from the trial for the purposes of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. The statutory question was fact-sensitive. Deliberate absence required consideration of the person’s absence from the particular trial, rather than merely departure from the jurisdiction or awareness of criminal proceedings in general. This approach was consistent with Government of Albania and Bleta [2005] 1 WLR 3576, which emphasised that the statutory language referred to a specific trial event.

3. The burden lay on the judicial authority to prove deliberate absence to the criminal standard. The court considered the approach in Bicioc v Romania [2014] EWHC 628 (Admin), including the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The District Judge had been entitled to rely on the proper service of the summons through Mr Trocha’s mother, his obligation to notify the authorities of a change of address, his previous involvement in the proceedings, his failure to attend or seek an adjournment, and the inconsistencies in his evidence. She was also entitled to reject his account that he had been unaware of the hearing.

5. Those findings satisfied the minimum requirement under section 20. The Administrative Court would not interfere with that evaluative factual conclusion merely because another view of the evidence had been open.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tempia ordered extradition under three European Arrest Warrants on 28 October 2014.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): the challenge concerning the third warrant was dismissed.