Knorr v Regional Court In Krakow (Poland)

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in extradition proceedings, the court may permit a change of case and further evidence where there has been a material change in circumstances since the original hearing. The evidence must address matters arising since that hearing and may include medical evidence. The court should allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to answer the new material before listing the renewed application for oral determination.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Branston on 27 April 2018. Permission was refused on paper by Robin Knowles J. At an oral hearing before Whipple J, the applicant confirmed that he pursued only a specialty point and abandoned his Article 8 arguments.

Before the present hearing, new counsel irrevocably abandoned the specialty point and sought to revive Article 8 arguments based partly on the applicant’s adult son having died in Poland in July 2018 and the alleged effect on the applicant’s mental health. The issue was whether the applicant should be permitted to adduce further evidence and advance perfected grounds addressing those changed circumstances.

1. Further evidence permitted. In the unusual circumstances, the applicant was permitted to adduce further evidence, including medical evidence, concerning changes in circumstances since the hearing before the district judge in April 2018. The evidence could be filed by 15 March 2019.
2. New grounds permitted. The applicant was permitted to file and serve perfected and final grounds of appeal, supported by a skeleton argument, by the same date. The court accepted that the change in counsel had resulted in a different formulation of the proposed appeal, with the specialty arguments abandoned and Article 8 arguments revived.
3. Procedural fairness. The prosecution was to have three weeks to respond to the new evidence and grounds.
4. Further hearing. After those steps, the renewed application for permission to appeal was to be listed for an oral hearing at the first available date, with two hours allowed, so that the matter could be finally determined.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to appeal was before Mr Justice Holman. The court permitted further evidence and new grounds, allowed time for a prosecution response, and directed an oral hearing.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Robin Knowles J refused permission on paper on 15 August 2018.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Whipple J heard the renewed application orally on 26 September 2018. The applicant confirmed that only the specialty point was pursued; an application to adduce further Article 8 evidence was dismissed and directions were given for a final hearing.
• District Judge: District Judge Branston ordered extradition on 27 April 2018, after discharging the applicant in relation to offence 32 but ordering extradition in relation to offences 1 to 31.