Niewinski v The Regional Court In Wroclaw (Poland)

In extradition proceedings, a renewed application for bail must be considered afresh. Earlier refusals should generally be put aside, subject to reliance on relevant findings such as previous bail compliance and the applicant’s knowledge. The question is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. That assessment requires consideration of all the evidence and circumstances, including the likely custodial sentence, deliberate previous evasion, the stage and prospects of resistance to extradition, relevant subsequent conduct, and the adequacy of proposed conditions and security. A substantial financial security and stringent conditions do not necessarily overcome a high risk of non-surrender.

The applicant sought bail while detained pending extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant. Bail had previously been refused by magistrates and the High Court. The parties agreed that the increased pre-release security amounted to a change of circumstances and that the statutory function under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 required the application to be considered afresh.

The applicant relied on strong United Kingdom ties, a business, substantial security and stringent conditions. The respondent argued that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender, having previously evaded service of the relevant sentence. The central issue was whether the proposed conditions sufficiently addressed that risk.

1. Bail refused. The application was considered afresh, in accordance with section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin). Earlier bail refusals were put aside, except insofar as relevant findings about bail compliance and knowledge were relied upon.
2. The statutory question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. The assessment was an overall one based on the evidence and circumstances.
3. The applicant faced a substantial period of imprisonment in Poland. The relevant sentence was an aggregate sentence of six years, with approximately three years and nine months remaining after credit for time on remand. That represented a significant incentive to abscond.
4. There was a clear finding by the district judge that the applicant had previously become a fugitive after obtaining consolidation of the relevant sentences. His earlier deliberate evasion materially increased the risk of non-surrender.
5. The resistance to extradition had entered its likely final stage. The remaining challenge depended on a point of principle which the judge had considered reasonably arguable in Wozniak, but which remained unresolved. The applicant could therefore perceive himself as having little further opportunity to avoid imprisonment.
6. The applicant’s conviction for perverting the course of justice, involving false details given to police, was relevant to the assessment of his willingness to comply. The court also considered the proposed £50,000 security, residence condition, curfew, electronic monitoring, passport retention and reporting requirements. Those measures did not sufficiently allay the risk.
7. The court concluded that substantial grounds remained for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. Bail was refused.

This was a renewed first-instance bail application in extradition proceedings. The judgment records earlier refusals by magistrates and the High Court, including 21 November 2019 and 16 July 2020. The present application was considered afresh because the proposed pre-release security had increased.