ARTHUR ANDRZEJ LECHICKI v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

In an extradition bail application involving conviction Extradition Arrest Warrants, the court must assess afresh whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released.

The assessment is directed to the practical risk of non-surrender. Relevant considerations may include the custodial sentence faced, the apparent imminence of removal, the applicant’s ties and stability in the United Kingdom, transience and mobility, travel across borders, and evidence suggesting prior evasion. Proposed conditions must be considered, but bail may properly be refused where they do not sufficiently address the risk.

The applicant sought bail pending substantive extradition proceedings in the magistrates’ court. He was wanted by Poland under two conviction Extradition Arrest Warrants and faced a cumulative custodial term of nine years and 55 days for 20 offences, including 11 burglaries.

Bail had previously been refused by District Judge Tempia on 18 January 2022. The applicant proposed conditions including electronic monitoring, residence with a cousin, reporting, retention of a Polish identity document and a £5,000 security. The central issue was whether release would create a substantial risk that he would fail to surrender.

1. Application refused. The court was not prepared to grant bail because there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, notwithstanding the proposed conditions or any further conditions the court could devise.
2. The custodial term faced by the applicant was a very strong incentive to avoid the consequences of extradition. It was also on the cards that he would perceive himself as facing imminent removal to serve that sentence. The court assessed the risk without prejudging the magistrates’ court’s consideration of the substantive extradition objections.
3. The applicant had minimal ties with the United Kingdom. Relevant features included his apparent transience, including evidence that he was sleeping on his niece’s sofa when arrested, his mobility and period of residence in Germany, and his evidence of travelling around European countries.
4. There was a serious case, on the face of the warrants, that he had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive after arrest and remand in Poland and subsequent release. The timing of his arrival in February 2019, alongside the relevant convictions, was a legitimate risk feature. The judge expressly stated that he was not making findings of fact, but was identifying features relevant to the present risk assessment.
5. There was no strong anchoring effect in the applicant’s private or family life in the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, bail was refused.

Bail had previously been refused by District Judge Tempia on 18 January 2022. The Administrative Court considered the applicant’s bail application and refused bail.