Roman Ryszard Peksa v Regional Court in Olsztyn (Poland)

On an extradition appeal engaging Article 8 ECHR, the appellate court will not interfere with the District Judge’s balance-sheet assessment or outcome unless the decision is arguably wrong. A finding that the requested person knowingly evaded the Polish authorities may explain delay and weigh against an argument that extradition is unjust or oppressive. The fact that only a few months of the sentence remain is not, by itself, a basis for allowing an appeal. Where the factors favouring extradition decisively outweigh those against it and no viable ground of appeal is shown, permission to appeal should be refused.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve the remaining part of sentences imposed for three fraud offences. The District Judge ordered extradition on 26 April 2022 after rejecting arguments based on Article 8 ECHR, medical conditions, delay, the relative seriousness of the offences and time spent on qualifying remand. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers, and the appellant renewed his application in person.

The central issue was whether any viable ground existed for challenging the District Judge’s findings and Article 8 assessment, including the effects of delay, the appellant’s personal circumstances and the short period of sentence remaining.

1. Permission to appeal refused. There was no realistic prospect of success and no viable ground of appeal. There was no order as to costs.
2. The finding that the appellant was a fugitive could not be overturned on appeal. He had knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the Polish authorities by leaving without notifying a change of address, while aware of the proceedings.
3. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that extradition was not unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time. The further information explained that the delay was attributable to evasion by the organised criminal gang and by the appellant.
4. The fact that approximately four months of the sentence remained after qualifying remand did not provide a basis for allowing the appeal. The court applied the approach explained in Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin) §11.
5. The appellate court would not overturn the District Judge’s Article 8 balance-sheet assessment or its outcome. The factors favouring extradition decisively outweighed those against it, and the decision was not even arguably wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The District Judge ordered extradition on 26 April 2022. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Wall J on 8 September 2022. On renewal, the High Court refused permission to appeal on 15 November 2022.