Trybek v Regional Court In Kielce, Poland

In extradition bail proceedings, the court must consider bail afresh. Previous compliance with bail conditions is an important factor but may be outweighed by later developments, including an order for extradition and reliable findings that the applicant previously fled justice. The central question is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding proposed conditions. The court must assess the practical strength of the applicant’s ties to the United Kingdom and whether the conditions sufficiently reduce the risk. A risk assessment may properly rely on factual findings made by the extradition judge after hearing the applicant’s evidence.

The applicant was wanted for extradition to Poland under two conviction European Arrest Warrants. Extradition had been ordered by a District Judge on 31 July 2020. Bail had previously been granted and enlarged, and the applicant had complied with the conditions for more than three months, including attending court.

Following the extradition order, the applicant applied to the Administrative Court for bail pending an application for permission to appeal. The respondent opposed bail on the ground that there were substantial grounds to believe that he would fail to surrender. The central issue was whether the previous compliance and proposed stringent conditions sufficiently addressed that risk.

1. Bail considered afresh. The court accepted that its task was to consider the bail position afresh, as stated in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin). The earlier revocation of bail was therefore not treated as determinative.
2. Substantial grounds for failure to surrender. Bail was refused because there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding the proposed conditions. The court considered the custodial sentence faced in Poland, the applicant’s strong desire to avoid it, and the District Judge’s finding that he had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive to avoid serving his sentence.
3. Assessment of changed circumstances. Previous compliance weighed significantly in the applicant’s favour, but the circumstances had materially changed. Extradition had been ordered, adverse factual findings had been made, and the applicant’s remaining prospect was an application for permission to appeal. The court considered that the absence of close relationships of dependency in the United Kingdom weakened the anchoring effect of his ties there.
4. The pattern of compliance until an adverse substantive decision, followed by departure to the United Kingdom, was a material factor. The proposed residence, curfew, electronic monitoring, reporting, travel restrictions, mobile-phone requirement and security did not sufficiently allay the risk.
5. Uncertainty concerning the applicant’s passports or identity documents reinforced the concerns, although the court made no finding as to what had happened to them. Bail was refused.

The application was made to the High Court (Administrative Court) for bail pending an application for permission to appeal against the extradition proceedings. The judgment does not state a separate appellate decision.