Krzyanowski v Regional Court of Krakow

Where qualifying remand in the United Kingdom reaches or exceeds the custodial term for which extradition is sought, continued extradition becomes inappropriate. The court may analyse the issue under Article 8 ECHR or as an abuse of process. Where the threshold is imminent, discharge may be ordered with effect deferred until the threshold is crossed. A court considering permission to appeal may project forward the remand time likely to be served where the appellant has a freestanding and durable basis to remain in the United Kingdom. An enforceability concern should be investigated before extradition proceeds, since extradition would be an abuse of process if the requesting state could not execute the judgment.

The appellant challenged extradition to Poland in respect of a 10-month custodial sentence. An earlier judgment had raised concerns about the expiry of the Polish sentence and about principles considered in Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin). Following adjournments, the court considered whether qualifying remand served in the United Kingdom would exhaust the sentence before the appeal was finally determined.

The respondent accepted that the remand-time issue could be raised out of time and that the hearing should be treated as the substantive appeal on that ground. The central issues were whether the Polish sentence remained enforceable, whether the appellant’s remand would amount to service of the sentence, and when discharge and release should take effect.

1. The court granted permission to appeal out of time on the qualifying remand-time ground and treated the hearing as the substantive appeal. Permission was refused on the remaining grounds.

2. The enquiry required by Grazulis [2015] EWHC 707 (Admin) had established that the Polish sentence remained enforceable until 20 March 2029. The enforceability issue therefore fell away. Any residual issue concerning Polish law was for the Polish authorities.

3. Following Molik [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin), once qualifying remand exceeds the time remaining to serve for the sentence pursued by extradition, extradition is necessarily inappropriate. The analysis may be based on Article 8 ECHR or abuse of process. On the facts, proportionality and abuse of process were satisfied once the 10-month line was crossed, but not before.

4. Where the threshold is imminent, discharge may be ordered with its effect deferred until the date on which the remand line is crossed, as illustrated by Beczer [2019] EWHC 1016 (Admin). The durable basis supplied by the Wozniak point also permitted the court to project forward the remand time likely to be served.

5. The further three-year sentence could not resist discharge because the District Judge had ordered its discharge under section 10(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, having found that the offences were not extradition offences. The appeal was therefore allowed under section 27(2) and (4), the extradition order was quashed, and discharge and release were deferred to 17 December 2020, subject to the appellant remaining in custody. The date could be brought forward if enquiries established that the sentence had been served earlier. There was no order as to costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): In the earlier judgment, Krzyanowski v Regional Court of Krakow [2020] EWHC 2351 (Admin), the court raised issues concerning enforceability and remand time. Following adjournments, the present judgment granted permission on the remand-time ground and determined the substantive appeal.