Adrian Waldemar Szychowski v Regional Court In Poznan (Poland)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case should be granted where it is reasonably arguable that material evidence could alter the Article 8 balance. Relevant evidence may include a partner’s vulnerability, isolation, mental-health needs and the availability of urgent care and support. The court may also consider steps taken by the requested person towards complying with a compensation obligation, while respecting the requesting state’s prosecutorial and penal-enforcement decisions. Such compliance cannot be treated as irrelevant without proper consideration. The substantive appeal court must evaluate the evidence and may reconsider the proportionality balance in the round, giving appropriate respect to the district judge’s findings and evaluation.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal against an extradition decision. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Mr Justice Johnson. The proposed appeal concerned the effect of the appellant’s partner’s vulnerability, isolation, mental-health difficulties and pregnancy on the Article 8 assessment, and the relevance of payments made towards compensation arising from the offence. The court also considered whether fresh evidence should be admitted, leaving its evaluation and decisiveness to the substantive appeal court.

1. The renewed application was granted. The proposed appeal was reasonably arguable, both on the partner’s circumstances and on the appellant’s steps towards paying compensation.

2. There was an arguable evidential gap between the partner’s serious and immediate mental-health concerns and the assumption that appropriate care and support would be available. The substantive appeal court could therefore revisit the weight given to her vulnerability, isolation, mental health and support needs in the Article 8 balance.

3. The ordinary starting point in extradition cases is respect for the requesting state’s prosecutorial and penal-enforcement decisions, including sentencing, activation of suspended sentences and related enforcement questions. That principle did not prevent the court, for the purposes of the human-rights evaluation, from considering the extent of steps taken towards compliance with a compensation obligation.

4. On the evidence, the appellant had made substantial payments, obtained the bank’s agreement to an ongoing arrangement and expressed an intention to repay the whole compensation debt. It was reasonably arguable that the district judge should not have treated those matters as irrelevant or assigned them no weight.

5. Podolski was treated as a helpful reference point because it considered compliance with an obligation underlying a suspended sentence. The court left the substantive appeal court to determine the fresh evidence, the possible relevance of further authority and the overall proportionality balance. No final decision on the merits was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Johnson refused permission to appeal on the papers. On renewal, Mr Justice Fordham granted permission to appeal, holding that the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable.