Adam Sebastian Baranowski v Polish Judicial Authority

In a conviction European Arrest Warrant case, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must assess afresh whether substantial grounds exist for believing that the requested person will fail to surrender, having regard to all relevant circumstances and the proposed conditions. Relevant considerations may include previous failures to surrender, non-compliance with court-ordered requirements, the seriousness and context of the foreign offending and sentence, the person’s perception of the strength of the extradition case, and the existence or absence of anchoring ties. Family relationships and caring responsibilities are relevant but may not sufficiently reduce the risk where relocation remains a realistic possibility. Bail may be refused on the failure-to-surrender ground alone.

The applicant was wanted for extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant to serve a five-year custodial sentence for driving while intoxicated and disqualified. He sought bail pending his extradition hearing. He relied on his four years’ residence in the United Kingdom, his partner and young child, his role as primary carer, his intention to contest extradition, and proposed conditions including electronic monitoring and security.

The respondent opposed bail on the basis that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender or commit further offences. The central issue was whether the evidence established a sufficient failure-to-surrender risk despite the proposed conditions.

1. Bail refused. The court considered the application afresh and held that substantial grounds existed for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. That ground alone justified refusal; the court did not rely on the risk of further offending.
2. Because this was a conviction European Arrest Warrant case, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The assessment required consideration of the overall circumstances and whether proposed or additional conditions would adequately address the risk.
3. The applicant’s domestic offending included a previous failure to surrender, which weighed against him. His failure to comply with a Polish court’s direction to undergo psychiatric assessment was also significant, particularly because he had remained outside Poland and beyond the court’s reach.
4. The court considered the seriousness and context of the Polish sentence, including the previous similar conviction and the fact that the index offence involved driving while disqualified. The applicant might perceive that his resistance to extradition was fragile and that extradition was likely soon, increasing the incentive to abscond. The court was not determining the merits of unargued extradition grounds.
5. The applicant’s family unit and caring role were relevant protective factors, but the court considered that the family might choose relocation rather than face a long-term separation. The relatively recent arrival of the partner and the child’s young age meant that the family circumstances did not provide sufficient anchoring ties. The proposed conditions did not allay the concerns.