Kowalowka v Polish Judicial Authority

In a conviction-warrant extradition case, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must assess afresh whether, on all the material before it, there are substantial grounds for considering that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. The assessment is objective and must include the sentence faced, the applicant’s previous conduct in leaving the requesting state, the realistic prospects of resisting extradition, family and other ties, and the effectiveness of proposed conditions. Strong family ties and substantial security may not sufficiently reduce the risk where the applicant has previously crossed borders to avoid responsibility and faces a significant custodial term.

The applicant sought bail pending an extradition hearing. A district judge in the magistrates’ court had refused bail twice during the preceding month. The Administrative Court was required to determine the application on its merits, rather than supervise or review those refusals.

The applicant faced extradition to Poland in connection with drug-related convictions and an aggregated custodial sentence of two years and eight months, upheld on appeal. He relied on family ties in the United Kingdom and proposed stringent bail conditions. The respondent submitted that there were substantial grounds to fear that he would fail to surrender.

1. Approach. The court considered the application afresh on the material and submissions before it. It was not exercising a supervisory or review jurisdiction over the earlier bail refusals. That approach was supported by Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).
2. Applicable standard. This was a conviction-warrant case, so no presumption arose in favour of bail. The question was whether, objectively and having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds for considering that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding the proposed conditions.
3. Risk assessment. The applicant faced a substantial custodial term which had recently been upheld on appeal. He had previously left Poland while aware of the criminal proceedings and represented at trial. His departure, involving crossing an international border, was a significant indicator of a willingness to avoid responsibility. The imminent extradition proceedings, including the pending Wozniak hearing [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin), could reasonably be perceived by him as offering slender prospects of resisting extradition. The court expressed no view on the merits of those issues.
4. Conditions and family ties. The applicant’s relationship, residence, family responsibilities and the proposed £2,000 security were relevant and were carefully considered. They did not allay the court’s concerns. The decisive assessment was based on the combination of the substantial sentence faced, the applicant’s prior flight from Poland and the realistic risk that he would again cross borders to escape responsibility.
5. Order. Bail was refused because there were substantial grounds for considering that the applicant would fail to surrender if released.