Arkadiusz Jan Bibro v Regional Court in Tarnów, Poland

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an extradition case, a district judge’s decision under Article 8 is permissible where the judge has made careful findings of fact and conducted the required balancing exercise. The High Court will not interfere merely because another outcome might reasonably have been reached. A section 14 challenge based on delay is fatally undermined where the requested person knowingly absconded and remained non-compliant with the conditions of sentence. In exceptional circumstances, where a pending legal issue may affect extradition, the court may stay the effect of an order refusing permission and invite written submissions before surrender takes place.

The appellant challenged an order by District Judge Sam Goozée dated 9 January 2020 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a seven-month custodial sentence imposed after a 2013 conviction for fraud by false representations.

Before the High Court, he relied on delay under section 14 and disproportionate interference with family and private life under Article 8. He accepted that the district judge’s factual findings defeated the section 14 ground. During the renewed permission hearing, the court also considered a pending section 2 issue concerning the status of the Polish issuing authority, identified in Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin).

1. Permission refused on the original grounds. The appellant accepted that he could not challenge the district judge’s finding that he had left Poland as a fugitive, knowingly failed to comply with the compensation and supervision conditions, and remained uncontactable. That finding justified rejection of the section 14 argument.
2. Article 8 assessment. The district judge had considered the appellant’s minor single offence, short sentence, payment of compensation, family relationship with his daughter in Poland, employment and settled life in the United Kingdom, absence of later convictions, and the public interest in extradition. The district judge was entitled to find that the factors against extradition did not outweigh the strong public interest in giving effect to the Polish request. The evaluation was careful, full and plainly correct, and was not reasonably arguable as wrong.
3. Pending section 2 issue. The court noted that Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin) raised an issue capable of affecting Polish conviction warrants. Although the appellant had not previously raised it and there was no written amendment application, it would not be in the interests of justice for surrender to occur without an opportunity to address the issue.
4. The court therefore ordered that permission to appeal was refused on the section 14 and Article 8 grounds, made no order as to costs, and stayed the effect of that order for 14 days or further order. The parties were given a short timetable for submissions, including any application to amend the grounds. The court referred to the safeguard in Criminal Procedure Rules rule 50.27 permitting an appeal to be reopened.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused on the section 14 and Article 8 grounds. The effect of the order was stayed for 14 days or further order to permit submissions concerning a possible section 2 ground.
• District judge: On 9 January 2020, the district judge ordered extradition to Poland.