Pawlak v Crown Prosecution Service

Where extradition is sought on the basis of a conviction warrant, the applicant has no right to bail. Bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender or commit further offences. Relevant considerations include the outstanding custodial term, the applicant’s recent offending history, the circumstances in which offending occurred, the risk that those circumstances would recur, and the strength of the applicant’s community ties. Stringent proposed conditions and surety arrangements do not necessarily overcome a substantial risk of absconding or further offending.

The applicant sought bail pending an extradition hearing based on a European Arrest Warrant relating to convictions for two drug offences committed in 2007 and 2011. A remaining custodial term of approximately eight or nine months was disputed.

He had recently been released from a 64-month domestic sentence for conspiracy to burgle and remained on licence. He offered stringent bail conditions, including a surety and accommodation. The Crown Prosecution Service opposed bail, submitting that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender or commit further offences. The central issue was whether bail should be granted pending the extradition hearing.

1. Bail framework. Because extradition was sought on the basis of a conviction warrant, the applicant had no right to bail. The court therefore considered whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender or commit further offences.
2. Risk assessment. There were substantial grounds for believing that either risk existed. The outstanding sentence, although measured in months rather than years, remained reasonably substantial. The applicant’s recent offending history was particularly significant. His domestic conviction followed a substantial sentence for conspiracy to burgle, committed shortly after his arrival in the United Kingdom.
3. Relevance of circumstances and ties. The conditions which had contributed to the domestic offending—limited personal contacts and the need to fund himself and his family in Poland—would, in the judge’s assessment, replicate themselves if he were released. There was consequently a real risk of further offending. His community ties in the United Kingdom were limited. The proposed surety and accommodation did not sufficiently reduce the risk.
4. Matters left for the extradition hearing. The judge put out of consideration whether the applicant had evaded Polish justice, since issues concerning whether he was a fugitive were better addressed at the extradition hearing before the Magistrates’ Court.
5. Disposition. Bail was refused. The applicant’s extradition hearing was to proceed in early November, later identified as 24 November 2020.