Daniel Malecki v The District Court in Zamosc, Poland

Permission to appeal in an extradition case requires a ground with a realistic prospect of success. For double jeopardy, the court may place primary reliance on the European Arrest Warrant and supplementary information supplied by the requesting judicial authority where that material unequivocally records the convictions.

In an Article 8 ECHR assessment, fugitivity is not an automatic switch determining the result. Even if a person is not a fugitive, knowingly breaching the conditions of a suspended sentence remains relevant. Passage of time, remand time and private life must be weighed against the public interest in extradition through a nuanced, fact-specific assessment.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to serve a 20-month sentence activated after he knowingly failed to maintain required probation contact. The District Judge ordered extradition on 30 October 2020. Johnson J refused permission on certain grounds and stayed a separate section 2 and Article 6 issue pending related proceedings.

On renewal, the appellant pursued arguments under section 12 concerning alleged double jeopardy and under Article 8 concerning private life, fugitivity, delay and time spent on remand. The issue was whether either ground was reasonably arguable.

1. Permission refused. Neither ground had a realistic prospect of succeeding on a substantive appeal.
2. On section 12, the discrepancy between the European Arrest Warrant and an international convictions printout did not make the double-jeopardy ground reasonably arguable. The European Arrest Warrant was the primary document directly emanating from the Polish judicial authority. It recorded three convictions, as did the supplementary information. The District Judge was entitled to rely on that material and to find that the appellant had pleaded guilty to two assaults and one burglary. The appellant’s own evidence reinforced that conclusion.
3. On Article 8, the court assumed in the appellant’s favour that the finding of fugitivity could be overturned. That assumption would not alter the result. The appellant knowingly breached the conditions of his suspended sentence after relocating abroad, and that conduct remained relevant to the overall evaluative exercise.
4. Fugitivity and non-fugitivity are not an automatic determinant of the Article 8 outcome. Passage of time, including any culpability in delay, may weaken the public interest in extradition and strengthen private and family life, but must be assessed with all the circumstances. The court could project forward to the likely substantive hearing and take account of qualifying remand time.
5. The serious index offences, prior offending in Poland, a subsequent United Kingdom conviction, the appellant’s limited period in the United Kingdom, and the location of his children were strong factors supporting extradition. Even with increased remand time and the most favourable view of fugitivity, there was no realistic prospect that the Article 8 balance would favour the appellant.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal refused on the section 12 and Article 8 grounds.
• District Judge: District Judge Goozee ordered extradition to Poland on 30 October 2020.
• High Court: Johnson J refused permission on the pursued grounds on 26 February 2021; the renewed application was heard by Fordham J.