Andrzej Gotowala v Circuit Court in Sieradz (Poland)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case should be refused where the proposed grounds depend on a premise that is not reasonably arguable. The court may consider fresh evidence produced late, but its timing remains a serious concern and may affect the fairness of the hearing. In an Article 8 proportionality assessment, an individual’s conduct contributing to delay, including leaving the requesting state while subject to an unpaid redress obligation and failing to provide a forwarding address, may remain relevant even if the person is not legally characterised as a fugitive. Strong public interests in extradition may decisively outweigh private and health-related factors.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Callaway on 12 July 2021. Permission had previously been refused by Jay J on 15 October 2021, and the application was renewed before the Administrative Court.

The extradition request concerned an activated 10-month custodial sentence for fraud relating to a television loan. The appellant argued that the European Arrest Warrant also encompassed a separate jewellery-theft offence and a further 59-day sentence. He also relied on alleged defects concerning particularisation, sentence length, absence from trial and retrial rights, together with interference with his Article 8 rights.

1. Renewed permission application refused. Permission to appeal was refused on all four grounds. The proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
2. The common premise underlying the first three grounds was not reasonably arguable. The European Arrest Warrant repeatedly identified one offence, namely the fraud, and stated that the relevant custodial sentence and remaining sentence were 10 months. The reference to the jewellery theft concerned an unpaid fine and helped explain the activation of the suspended fraud sentence; it did not make the separate offence part of the extradition request. The consequential arguments under Extradition Act 2003 sections 2, 10, 65 and 20 therefore did not arise.
3. Although fresh evidence was served shortly before the hearing, the court considered it in the circumstances. The lateness was seriously regrettable, particularly because the respondent was unrepresented, but the evidence was not excluded on this occasion.
4. For the Article 8 ground, the court considered the relevant factors afresh and took account of the appellant’s mental-health evidence, United Kingdom ties, delay, the length and seriousness of the sentence, and the public interest in extradition and mutual respect between states.
5. Even assuming that the appellant was not legally a fugitive, his knowledge of the redress obligation, failure to pay it, failure to pay the theft-related fine, and failure to provide a forwarding address were relevant to the assessment of delay and his own responsibility for the situation. The factors favouring extradition decisively outweighed those against it.
6. The order refusing permission included a recital that extradition was sought only in relation to the activated 10-month sentence arising from the fraud.

• Administrative Court: District Judge Callaway ordered extradition on 12 July 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Jay J refused permission to appeal on 15 October 2021. Mr Justice Fordham refused renewed permission on all four grounds.