Artur Antoniewicz v Circuit Court in Lublin (Poland)

In an extradition permission application, the court may proceed on the current evidence where a later medical development remains uncertain, particularly where the procedural rules provide a route to reopen the permission decision if genuinely significant new circumstances arise.

A health-related objection under section 25 and an Article 8 ECHR objection require a reasonably arguable case on the evidence presently available. The Article 8 assessment weighs health, private and family circumstances, United Kingdom ties, delay, fugitive status, offence seriousness and the sentence remaining to be served.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against a District Judge's order for his extradition to Poland on four European Arrest Warrants. Permission had previously been partly refused by Lane J, with the section 2 issue stayed pending linked Polish extradition test cases. The appellant renewed arguments concerning oppression by reason of ill-health and Article 8 ECHR, and sought to amend the appeal notice to add an Article 3 ECHR prison-conditions ground.

He also sought an adjournment pending a cardiology referral and permission to rely on fresh evidence concerning his sister. The issues were whether any health-related ground was reasonably arguable, whether the Article 8 balance could realistically favour the appellant, and whether the Article 3 application should be stayed pending the linked test cases.

1. The application to adjourn was refused. The court assessed whether any reasonably arguable health-related ground existed on the current position. The possible future significance of the cardiology referral did not justify deferring the decision because Criminal Procedure Rules 50.27 provided a route to apply to reopen a permission decision if genuinely significant developments occurred.

2. Permission to appeal on the section 25 oppression-by-ill-health ground was refused. The appellant accepted that no reasonably arguable ground could be advanced on the evidence available.

3. Permission to rely on fresh evidence concerning the appellant's sister was refused. The evidence was incapable of being decisive and raised concerns about its preparation and inconsistencies which would have been tested by cross-examination.

4. Permission to appeal on Article 8 ECHR was refused. The appellant's lung condition could not materially affect the proportionality assessment because it had been addressed in United Kingdom custody and relevant medical care would be available in Polish custody. Although his settled life, United Kingdom ties, health and the passage of time weighed against extradition, his fugitive status, the seriousness of the offences, the strong public interest in extradition and the substantial custody remaining to be served decisively outweighed those matters.

5. The application to amend the appeal notice to add the Article 3 prison-conditions ground was stayed pending final determination of the linked Article 3 test cases, Litwinczuk, Lukaszek and Tadaszak. The appellant was required thereafter to state whether he wished to pursue the ground and, if so, file written submissions. There was no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of publicly funded costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for permission to appeal was renewed after Lane J partly refused permission on 15 February 2021. The present court refused permission on the section 25 and Article 8 grounds, refused fresh evidence on those grounds, and stayed the proposed Article 3 amendment pending linked test cases.
• Westminster Magistrates' Court: DJ Radway ordered extradition to Poland on 30 July 2020 after an oral hearing on 2 July 2020.