Wawrzyniak v District Court In Legnica, Poland

On an extradition appeal, the court must address the substance of an alleged error under the statutory appeal scheme. A procedural complaint does not convert the appeal into judicial review merely because the appellant characterises the error as fundamental. Fresh evidence may be considered only where there is good reason for its late admission and it is capable of being decisive. In assessing permission to appeal, the court must ask whether the proposed ground is reasonably arguable, including whether the lower court’s overall evaluation was arguably wrong. Dual criminality may be established by necessary inference from the conduct described in an arrest warrant. Article 8 requires a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment that gives appropriate weight to the public interest in extradition, particularly where the requested person entered the United Kingdom as a fugitive.

The appellant faced extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. One sought his return for trial on alleged offences, and the other sought enforcement of the unserved balance of a custodial sentence. The district judge ordered extradition on 18 March 2020. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by William Davis J on 5 June 2020.

On renewal, the appellant sought permission on grounds including dual criminality, article 8 of the ECHR, proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, and alleged procedural error. He also sought to amend his grounds to raise issues being considered in the linked cases of Wozniak and Chlabicz. The central questions were whether the existing grounds were reasonably arguable and whether consideration of the linked issues should be stayed.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was refused on the existing grounds. The application to amend was granted in relation to the section 2 judicial-authority issue and the article 6 fair-trial issue arising in the linked cases. Consideration of those amended grounds was stayed pending judgment in those cases. The appellant was not to be extradited pending that further consideration. There was no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of publicly funded costs.
2. Adjournment and linked issues. It was appropriate to stay the newly raised grounds because arguable questions affecting both warrants were before the Divisional Court. It was not appropriate to adjourn the remaining grounds. Their reasonable arguability could and should be assessed immediately. The asserted relationship between the linked issues, article 8 and dual criminality did not justify delay.
3. Fresh evidence. Section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 permits consideration of fresh evidence where there is good reason why it was not relied upon below and it is capable of being decisive. The provision does not create a blanket entitlement for a litigant in person to adduce fresh evidence. The court considered the material provisionally and treated decisiveness as the first practical question.
4. Dual criminality. The appeal jurisdiction required the court to examine whether the district judge ought to have reached a different conclusion and, if so, whether discharge would have been required. The court rejected the submission that failure to examine every offence separately was automatically fatal. The conduct described in the warrants supported the necessary inferences for theft, handling stolen property and, in relation to the passport allegation, the statutory offence under section 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. No reasonably arguable dual-criminality point arose.
5. Article 8 and proportionality. The appellant’s family life, employment, rehabilitation, delay and the consequences of extradition were weighed against the strong public interest in extradition. That interest was reinforced because he had entered the United Kingdom as a fugitive and the warrants concerned serious alleged and proven offending. There was no realistic prospect that the district judge’s article 8 conclusion would be overturned. The section 21A point was not independently reasonably arguable.

• District judge: extradition ordered on 18 March 2020.
• High Court: permission to appeal refused on the papers by William Davis J on 5 June 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): renewed permission application refused on the existing grounds; amendment permitted for the linked section 2 and article 6 issues, with those issues stayed pending the Divisional Court’s decisions in Wozniak and Chlabicz.