Henryk Stezewski v Circuit Court in Bydgoscz, Poland

In an extradition appeal, the court must determine whether the statutory bar based on an absent conviction is made out by reference to the requested person’s available right to seek a retrial. Where the evidence establishes, to the criminal standard, that the judgment and appeal information were sent to the correct address, the section 20 challenge fails. A fallback right to seek a retrial may also be relevant where service is disputed.

Under Article 8, delay, settled residence, health, cognitive impairment and hardship must be weighed against the public interest in extradition, the seriousness of the offending and any fugitive status. Those factors do not make extradition disproportionate where the statutory framework has been correctly applied and appropriate treatment on return is available.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order for extradition to Poland to serve a suspended sentence later activated following two 2011 burglaries. Permission was granted on two grounds: the application of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the proportionality of extradition under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The District Judge found that the appellant had been served with the judgment at the correct address, had an available right to seek a retrial, was a fugitive from justice, and had not established that extradition would be disproportionate. On appeal, the principal issues were whether further information should be admitted to clarify service of the judgment and whether the Article 8 balance had been wrongly struck.

1. Further evidence. The court admitted further information from the respondent under its inherent jurisdiction. The governing question was whether admission was in the interests of justice. The material clarified an inconsistency in the earlier information and reinforced the District Judge’s finding that the judgment was sent to the address supplied by the appellant: FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin) applied.

2. Section 20. The District Judge had correctly directed himself on section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. The question on appeal was whether he was entitled to be satisfied, to the criminal standard, that the judgment containing information about the right of appeal had been properly served. The clarified evidence established service at the correct Mielenska address. The appellant therefore had an available right to seek a retrial under the information supplied about Polish law. The section 20 challenge failed. In any event, if the judgment had not been served, the appellant could argue on return that the time for seeking to set aside the judgment remained open.

3. Article 8. The District Judge had taken account of the passage of time, the appellant’s settled life in the United Kingdom, medical and cognitive difficulties, hardship, the seriousness of the offending, the appellant’s fugitive status and the public interest in fulfilling extradition obligations. There was no material enforcement delay after the breach of the suspended sentence became apparent. The finding that the appellant was a fugitive was supported by service of the judgment and his prior compliance with probation, notwithstanding his other suspended sentences.

4. The description of the offending as not trivial was open to the District Judge, having regard to two burglaries, the value of the property taken and the appellant’s previous convictions. His health and low IQ were relevant factors against extradition, but had been properly weighed. The evidence that appropriate healthcare would be available on return, together with the other factors favouring extradition, meant that the Article 8 balance was not disproportionate. Both grounds of appeal failed and the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge: On 16 April 2021, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland after rejecting challenges under sections 14, 20 and 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the ECHR.