Ozolin v Regional Court in Slupsk, Poland (Rev 1)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case will be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no realistic prospect of success. The appellate court should respect the district judge’s findings on matters assessed from live evidence, including fugitive status and dependency, unless an arguable error is shown. In an Article 8 extradition balance, delay and updated personal or family circumstances must be assessed realistically and proportionately against the public interest in extradition. The fact that the alleged offending is non-violent, or that the person is held on remand, does not by itself make the appeal arguable.

The appellant challenged a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland on an accusation European arrest warrant. The district judge found that he was a fugitive, treated his evidence as unsatisfactory and unreliable in material respects, found that his partner and son were not dependants, and conducted the required Article 8 balance.

Permission to appeal had been refused on the papers by Mr Justice Cavanagh. On renewal, the appellant relied on alleged errors concerning fugitive status, delay, family circumstances, the non-violent nature of the alleged offending, his remand detention and a new argument concerning the purpose of extradition. The central issue was whether any ground was reasonably arguable.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no reasonably arguable ground and no realistic prospect of the appeal succeeding.
2. The district judge was entitled to find that the appellant was a fugitive. She had considered the European arrest warrant, further information, documentary material and the appellant’s live evidence. The appellate court would not interfere merely because the appellant advanced the same factual points again.
3. The district judge had also considered the alleged delay and its effect on the appellant’s private and family life. Even if the delay were described as culpable, it did not undermine the Article 8 conclusion in the circumstances of this case.
4. The Article 8 assessment required the evidence to be considered in a sensible, realistic and balanced fashion against the public interest in extradition. The partner’s difficulties, the appellant’s period on remand, the non-violent character of the alleged offending and the updated Covid-19 evidence did not disclose an arguable error. The finding that the partner was not dependent was unassailable, particularly as she had support within her household.
5. The new submission that the appellant was not wanted for the purpose of prosecution was procedurally and substantively unarguable. No written grounds or supporting material had been provided, and the submission itself did not identify a reasonably arguable basis for the appeal.

1. District judge: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland by judgment dated 9 January 2020.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Cavanagh refused permission to appeal on the papers. On renewal, Mr Justice Fordham refused permission to appeal and permitted reliance on perfected grounds and fresh updating evidence.