Krzyzanowski v Regional Court of Krakow (Poland)

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an extradition case, the court may adjourn the application and require assistance from the respondent where unresolved legal or factual issues could affect the legality of extradition, detention, the court’s appellate jurisdiction or the appropriate remedy.

This is particularly so where the applicant is unrepresented and the respondent’s assistance is necessary in the interests of justice. The court is not required to determine an arguable point against an applicant in person where the relevant legal position remains unclear. Judicial review may also be available to address gaps arising from the structure of extradition appeals.

The applicant sought renewal of an application for permission to appeal after permission had been refused by Eady J. The renewal was substantially out of time. The underlying extradition order had been made by a district judge on 25 February 2019 in relation to a Polish conviction for fraud committed in November 1999.

The applicant argued that the time limit for enforcement of the Polish judgment expired on 20 March 2019, raising questions about whether extradition or detention remained lawful and what remedy would be available. There was also uncertainty about an appearance before a district judge on 3 February 2020 and a further legal issue concerning whether the Polish authorities continued to satisfy the requirement of a judicial authority under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The respondent had not filed a respondent’s notice and did not attend. The central issue was whether the application should be adjourned so that the respondent could address the unresolved questions.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was adjourned. The respondent was directed under rule 50.21(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules to file and serve a respondent’s notice addressing specified questions of law and fact.

2. The court considered respondent assistance necessary, appropriate and proportionate in the interests of justice. The applicant was acting in person, was detained, and sought to invoke access to the court. The judge was unwilling to permit extradition while material questions remained unanswered.

3. The expiry on 20 March 2019 of the Polish time limit for enforcement raised a substantial unresolved question. The court required the respondent to explain whether the applicant could lawfully be extradited or detained pursuant to the 2019 extradition order and, if not, what remedy was appropriate.

4. The timing provisions in sections 26(4) and (5) of the Extradition Act 2003 tightly constrained an appeal brought substantially out of time. Nevertheless, the court noted that the legal issue might engage judicial review jurisdiction where a gap arose from the structure of extradition appeals.

5. A further issue concerned the requirement of a judicial authority under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, following the reasonably arguable point identified in Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin) and referred to in subsequent cases. The court required assistance before determining the extant application.

6. The court recognised that the applicant’s deliberate absence from the proceedings might affect the availability of legal protections or a remedy, but left those questions open pending the respondent’s assistance. The adjourned hearing was to be listed before the same judge if possible.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Eady J refused permission to appeal on 29 June 2020. The applicant renewed the application out of time.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Fordham adjourned the renewed application on 20 August 2020 and directed the respondent to file a respondent’s notice.