Maczkowski v Circuit Court In Gdansk, Poland

On an application for bail in extradition proceedings concerning a conviction warrant, there is no presumption in favour of release. The court must assess afresh whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, considering the evidence and proposed conditions as a whole. A repeated history of failing to comply with bail conditions may provide a sufficient and strong basis for refusal. Incentives to comply, family support, financial security, electronic monitoring and passport restrictions do not necessarily overcome that risk. The court may rely on the requesting judicial authority’s documents at face value where no evidence raises a genuine identity issue.

The applicant sought bail under section 22 (1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 after magistrates had refused bail three times during extradition proceedings. He was wanted by Poland under a conviction warrant relating to a 14-month custodial sentence and had served approximately four months on remand.

He relied on the strength of his anticipated extradition arguments, incentives to comply, family support, proposed security, electronic monitoring, passport restrictions and his ties to the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender if released.

1. The application was considered afresh. The court applied the approach identified in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin) at paragraph 5.

2. Because this was a conviction warrant case, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The court considered the nature of the offences, the significant sentence remaining, the applicant’s previous failures to surrender in the United Kingdom, his absence from a Crown court trial, and his period of evasion.

3. The court was entitled, for the purpose of assessing risk, to give appropriate weight to the Polish judicial authority’s documents and its position that there was no mistaken identity. The applicant’s denial of involvement was an issue for the Polish courts and was unsupported by evidence capable of undermining the documents.

4. The history showed repeated failures to comply with release conditions, including absconding from United Kingdom and Polish proceedings. That history alone was sufficient to establish substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would again fail to surrender.

5. The proposed conditions, including electronic monitoring, financial security, passport restrictions, family support and employment, did not sufficiently allay the risk. The amount of security was not determinative. The court did not rely on the separate risk of further offending.

6. The refusal was based on the conclusion that, if released on the proposed conditions, the applicant would fail to surrender. The application for bail was refused.

The judgment records three earlier refusals of bail by magistrates on 19 February, 16 March and 20 April 2020. The High Court considered the bail merits afresh and refused the application.