Jablonski v Circuit Court in Lodz (Poland)

In extradition proceedings based on a conviction European Arrest Warrant, bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. The assessment is fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offences, the sentence faced, the applicant’s character and antecedents, compliance with previous court orders, alleged absconding, and the strength of community ties. Proposed conditions, including surety, residence and reporting requirements, must be considered but need not overcome the identified risk. Where the statutory test is met, bail may be refused even though the applicant has some personal and community ties.

The applicant was wanted for extradition to Poland pursuant to a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued on 10 April 2019 and certified on 20 June 2020. He faced approximately 18 months’ imprisonment, being the balance of a sentence of two years and two months imposed for various offences, including kidnap.

The extradition hearing was listed in the Magistrates’ Court for 30 October 2020. The applicant applied for bail and offered conditions including a surety, residence requirements and reporting requirements. The central issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender if released.

1. Application refused. The court had jurisdiction to consider bail in the extradition proceedings under section 22(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Because the extradition request was based on a conviction European Arrest Warrant, there was no presumption of bail.
2. The question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender to custody if released. The court accepted that this assessment required consideration of the circumstances relied on by the respondent and of the safeguards proposed by the applicant.
3. The relevant considerations included the seriousness of the offences, the significant period of imprisonment faced, the applicant’s character and antecedents, his previous non-compliance with court orders, and the submission that he had left Poland to evade the consequences of his offending. The allegation that he was a fugitive was ultimately for the Magistrates’ Court, but it was capable of contributing to the present assessment of surrender risk.
4. The applicant had some community ties arising from his relationship and residence with his partner for about 18 months. The court did not regard those ties as extensive. Having weighed them and the proposed conditions against the seriousness of the offending, the sentence, the applicant’s record and the apparent absconding, the court was satisfied that substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender.
5. Bail was therefore refused.