Urynowicz v The Regional Court of Lodz, Republic of Poland

In an extradition conviction-warrant case, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must consider bail afresh and decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender or commit further offences. The assessment is one of risk, not final fact-finding. Proposed conditions, including security, must be evaluated against the evidence as a whole. Bail may be refused where either risk is independently established.

The applicant sought bail in extradition proceedings after bail had been refused by district judges on 6 and 11 August 2020. Extradition to Poland had been ordered on 14 July 2020 in respect of an unserved three-year custodial sentence for a serious assault. The respondent opposed bail on the grounds of risk of failure to surrender and further offending. The central issues were whether those risks were supported by substantial grounds and whether the proposed conditions, including a £10,000 security, sufficiently addressed them.

1. Bail refused. The court was not prepared to grant bail because there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender to custody and, independently, that he would commit further offences.
2. In an European Arrest Warrant conviction case, the statutory starting point is that there is no presumption in favour of bail. The statutory function involves considering bail afresh, as explained in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).
3. The applicant faced extradition to serve the balance of a significant custodial sentence. The district judge had found that he had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive. That provided a substantial incentive and evidential basis for concern about failure to surrender.
4. The proposed conditions, including residence, electronic monitoring, reporting, travel restrictions, retention of identity documents and substantial security, did not sufficiently allay that risk. The court assessed risk on the material before it and did not purport to make findings of fact about the applicant’s relationship.
5. The further-offending risk was supported by breaches of notification requirements, possession of a knife, the index assault and an extensive antecedent record in Poland. The court was not satisfied that the proposed conditions would address those concerns.
6. The court made no observations on the substance of the pending permission application or on the possible relevance of Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin). Bail was therefore refused.

• District judges: Bail was refused on 6 August 2020 by DJ Fanning and on 11 August 2020 by DJ Griffiths.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for bail was considered afresh and refused on 19 August 2020.