ZBIGNIEW DOMIAN v CIRCUIT COURT IN GORZOW WIEIKOPOLSKI (POLAND)

In renewed extradition appeals, an adjournment should be refused where the appellant has had ample opportunity to obtain and present evidence, further delay would not materially assist the court, and the interests of justice and the public interest favour final determination.

Permission to appeal requires a realistically arguable basis for contending that the magistrates’ decisions were wrong. General allegations of unfairness, defective representation, delay, or human-rights violations do not suffice without material evidence capable of supporting the proposed grounds.

The appellant faced extradition to Poland under two European arrest warrants, each concerning a two-year prison sentence. The first case followed an extradition order made by District Judge Blake on 6 February 2020. The second followed an extradition order made by District Judge Goldspring on 15 January 2021, after an earlier adjournment had allowed documents to be translated and filed.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by McGowan J. The appellant renewed his applications, relying on alleged unfair trials in Poland, defective representation, delay, threats to his life, and Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 ECHR. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether any ground had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Applications refused. The renewed applications for permission to appeal were refused in both extradition cases.
2. An adjournment was not justified. The appellant had received substantial time, including a five-month adjournment in the second case to obtain translations and present documents. He had also been represented and had placed a large volume of material before the courts. Further adjournment would not put the court in any materially better position and would not serve the interests of justice or the public interest, having regard to the overriding objective.
3. The Article 5 and Article 6 grounds in the first case disclosed no viable basis of appeal. The court agreed with the detailed reasoning of District Judge Blake and McGowan J.
4. The Article 8 ground in the second case likewise disclosed no viable basis of appeal. District Judge Goldspring had properly considered the issues, including the 19-year period between the offences and the issuing of the second European arrest warrant.
5. The passage of time did not establish an arguable error. The delay occurred while the appellant remained in Poland until at least early 2018, and District Judge Goldspring had found that he came to the United Kingdom as a fugitive. The public-interest considerations favouring extradition decisively outweighed those relied upon against it.
6. Looking more widely, none of the alleged violations under the ECHR Articles relied upon by the appellant gave either case a realistic prospect of success. The court considered that decisive final determination was required.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Renewed applications for permission to appeal refused.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Blake ordered extradition under the first European arrest warrant in a judgment dated 6 February 2020. District Judge Goldspring ordered extradition under the second warrant in a judgment dated 15 January 2021.
• On the papers: McGowan J refused permission to appeal on 7 December 2021.