ADRIAN JABLONSKI v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

[2022] EWHC 1506 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2022] EWHC 1506 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
16 June 2022
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Human rights Extradition
Keywords
extradition permission to appeal Article 8 ECHR fugitive custodial sentence family or private life unsubstantiated relationship Wozniak ground
Outcome
application refused (appeal finally determined)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Permission to appeal on an Article 8 ground may properly be refused where the proposed challenge has no realistic viability. Relevant considerations included extradition as a fugitive, a substantial custodial sentence for serious matters, the absence of culpable delay, and an asserted relationship that was unsubstantiated. Where nothing has changed to strengthen the claim, and the remaining grounds have been finally resolved or cannot be advanced, refusal of permission finally determines the appeal.

Factual background

The appellant challenged extradition and sought permission to appeal. His original grounds included an Article 8 challenge and the Wozniak ground. In an earlier judgment, the court had considered the appeal proceedings, cited as [2020] EWHC 1334 (Admin).

The Wozniak issue was stayed pending determination by the Divisional Court and was ultimately resolved adversely. The appellant’s solicitors later came off the record, the representation order was discharged, and neither party attended the present hearing. The central issue was whether any viable basis remained for permission to appeal, particularly on Article 8 grounds.

Held

  1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused, finally determining the appeal proceedings.
  2. There was no remaining basis for pursuing the Wozniak ground, which had been finally determined adversely by the Divisional Court.
  3. The Article 8 challenge had no viability. The appellant faced extradition as a fugitive in relation to an aggregate custodial sentence of three and a half years for serious matters. There had been no culpable delay, and the asserted relationship relied upon was unsubstantiated.
  4. Having considered the context and circumstances, the court was satisfied that these matters provided a proper and sufficient basis for refusing permission. Nothing had changed to strengthen the claim; the circumstances had instead become less favourable.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • High Court (Administrative Court): The earlier stage of the proceedings was addressed in [2020] EWHC 1334 (Admin).
  • Divisional Court: The Wozniak ground was finally determined adversely in December 2021.
  • High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused on 16 June 2022.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.