MACIEJ SZYMANSKI v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

In an extradition case, the presumption in favour of bail is displaced where there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would fail to surrender. The court must assess the risk afresh and consider the proposed conditions and any other conditions it could properly devise. Relevant matters include the seriousness of the alleged offending, the likely consequences of conviction, the person’s perception of the risk of surrender and imprisonment, previous custody, family and community ties, mobility, and the evidential strength of factors said to anchor the person in the jurisdiction. The court must assess risk without determining factual issues reserved for the substantive extradition hearing.

The applicant sought bail pending the substantive hearing of an extradition request to Poland. The request concerned an accusation Extradition Arrest Warrant relating to alleged participation in cross-border cannabis trading. Bail had previously been refused by two district judges. The applicant relied on the statutory presumption in favour of bail, proposed stringent conditions, his family and community ties in the United Kingdom, and arguments concerning the extradition warrant. The central issue was whether substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender if released.

1. The application for bail was refused. The court considered the question afresh, rather than by way of supervisory review of the earlier refusals.
2. The presumption in favour of bail under the Extradition Act 2003 was displaced. There were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, notwithstanding the proposed conditions and any further conditions the court could properly devise.
3. The seriousness of the alleged offending and the substantial custodial sentence that might follow conviction were relevant to the risk assessment. The court was not required, and had no role, to assess the merits of the applicant’s proposed extradition arguments concerning extraterritoriality under section 64 and particularisation under section 2.
4. In assessing risk, the court could consider the applicant’s likely perception that he faced a real prospect of surrender for prosecution and a substantial term of imprisonment. His previous periods of custody in Poland, including a four-year sentence, were relevant. The alleged index offending was said to have occurred relatively soon after his release and with alleged associates known in prison.
5. The applicant’s family and community ties did not provide sufficient anchoring. His separation from his wife had resulted, on the papers, in ongoing estrangement and an inability to maintain regular contact with two children. His asserted prior engagement with the Polish authorities was undermined by contrary evidential material, although no findings of fact were made. His background also disclosed mobility, including residence in the Netherlands, and his cohabitation arrangement was of limited duration.
6. The court therefore reached the same conclusion as the district judges. The factual allegations remained matters for determination at the substantive extradition hearing.

The judgment records two earlier refusals of bail:

• Magistrates’ court: District Judge Snow refused bail on 17 November 2021.
• Magistrates’ court: District Judge Rimmer refused bail on 24 November 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the court considered bail afresh and refused the application.