LESZEK WITOLD DROZD v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Permission to appeal in extradition proceedings requires a ground to be reasonably arguable and supported by material capable of affecting the outcome. For passage of time, time during which the requested person deliberately acted as a fugitive is excluded. The court must then assess whether the remaining period reaches the statutory threshold of injustice or oppression. The Article 6 presumption that the requesting state will comply with Convention standards may defeat an argument based on the anticipated use of written, untested evidence. A health-based challenge requires evidence capable of showing that extradition would cross the same threshold. Presumptions that the requesting state will arrange an appropriate medical handover and act compatibly with human rights standards may be decisive. Strong public-interest considerations supporting extradition can outweigh family life and private-life factors under Article 8.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland in respect of serious alleged offences committed in 1999. Extradition was ordered by District Judge Baraitser on 23 March 2021. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Eady J on 12 October 2021.

On renewal, the appellant pursued challenges based on section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a proposed new ground under section 25 based on his physical health. Grounds concerning Article 3, and section 2 and Article 6, had been abandoned. The central questions were whether any ground was reasonably arguable and whether the proposed fresh medical evidence could be decisive.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was refused on all live grounds. Permission to rely on the proposed section 25 ground and to adduce the fresh medical evidence was also refused.

2. For section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant period began with the alleged offending in 1999. However, the period after the appellant became a fugitive in 2013 was excluded. The relevant period was therefore 1999 to 2013. On the evidence, that period came nowhere near the threshold of injustice or oppression.

3. The claimed risk that witnesses might be unavailable and that written evidence might be used at trial did not make the section 14 ground reasonably arguable. The relevant deterioration occurred after 2011 and there was no suggestion that the witnesses became unavailable between 2011 and 2013. In any event, the extradition court would presume that Poland would comply with Article 6 standards. The further information did not rebut that presumption or require further explanation.

4. The proposed section 25 ground was not reasonably arguable. The medical material showed a heart condition, previous surgery and anticipated cardiology treatment, but was not capable of being decisive either for discharge under section 25(3)(a) or adjournment under section 25(3)(b). Extradition arrangements necessarily involved suitable and informed medical handovers. The Polish authorities were presumed to act compatibly with applicable human-rights standards, and nothing rebutted that presumption.

5. The Article 8 ground had no realistic prospect of success. The delay was explained and non-culpable, the alleged offences were very serious, and the public interest in extradition was very strong. The appellant’s family life, settled position and employment in the United Kingdom were substantially weakened by his deliberate concealment of his identity from 2013 onwards and were decisively outweighed by the factors favouring extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): renewed application for permission to appeal refused on 14 December 2021.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Baraitser ordered extradition on 23 March 2021.
3. High Court: Eady J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 12 October 2021.