Zbigniew Hartun v Regional Court of Gdansk (Poland)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case requires a reasonably arguable ground. An appellate court will not ordinarily reassess foreign courts’ substantive or procedural decisions through the separate tests of oppression under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 or proportionality under Article 8 ECHR. The assessment remains fact-specific. Relevant matters may include the passage of time, compliance with conditions of suspended sentences, compensation defaults, family and private life in the United Kingdom, and the public interest in extradition. A prolonged stay in the United Kingdom does not, without more, establish oppression or disproportionate interference with private life. Where the foreign court has considered and rejected an attempt to reopen the relevant proceedings, that decision is materially relevant.

The appellant faced extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning a custodial sentence of four years and six months. District Judge Ikram ordered extradition on 5 October 2020. Johnson J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 15 January 2021.

The appellant renewed his application, relying on section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR. He also sought to amend his grounds to raise a section 2 issue arising from Wozniak and Chlabicz. The central questions were whether the section 14 and Article 8 grounds were reasonably arguable and how the proposed section 2 ground should proceed.

1. Permission on section 14 and Article 8 grounds. The application for permission to appeal on these grounds was refused. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would overturn the outcome, even on the assumptions most favourable to the appellant, including that he should not be treated as a fugitive and that the section 14 gateway was open.
2. Foreign proceedings. The court should not use section 14 oppression or Article 8 proportionality as a means of going behind or criticising the substantive or procedural approach taken by the Polish courts in activating the suspended sentences. The later Polish decision of 19 February 2021 rejecting an attempt to reopen the activations was highly relevant.
3. Fact-specific assessment. The passage of time had to be assessed with all the circumstances. The appellant’s nearly seven-year presence in the United Kingdom was relevant, but so were his cessation of contact with probation after two months and his failure to pay compensation, both contrary to conditions of the suspended sentences. He could not point to family life or relationships of dependence in the United Kingdom. Those matters did not approach oppression or the level of impact required to outweigh the strong public interest in extradition.
4. Respect for sentence. It was appropriate to respect the activated four-year-six-month custodial sentence, all of which remained to be served.
5. Section 2 ground. Permission to amend the grounds to rely on a section 2 issue concerning Wozniak and Chlabicz was granted, but the application for permission on that ground was stayed pending the Divisional Court’s judgment in those linked cases. The appellant was required to notify the court within 14 days after that judgment whether he would 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): District Judge Ikram ordered extradition on 5 October 2020. Johnson J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 15 January 2021. The renewed application was refused on the section 14 and Article 8 grounds. The proposed section 2 ground was allowed to be added and stayed pending the linked Divisional Court proceedings.