ARTHUR DOMASZEWICS v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Permission to appeal in an extradition case requires a reasonably arguable basis for concluding that the outcome below was wrong. Putative fresh evidence must be capable of being decisive in the applicant’s favour before it may be admitted.

In assessing an Article 8 ECHR challenge, the court must scrutinise the current circumstances and carry out a conscientious balancing exercise. Family ties, including ties involving young or medically vulnerable children, may carry substantial weight, but they must be balanced against the public interest in extradition. The passage of time may reduce the public interest weight while strengthening private and family life ties. A person’s decision to evade responsibility for a sentence remains a relevant feature of the proportionality assessment.

The appellant sought renewed permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Branston on 19 March 2020. Permission had previously been refused by Cutts J on 3 June 2021.

The renewed application relied on changed family circumstances and putative fresh evidence. The appellant’s former long-standing relationship had ended, while he had formed a new relationship with a partner whose seven-year-old son had Perthes disease. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence could be admitted and whether the extradition decision was reasonably arguable as wrong, including on Article 8 ECHR grounds.

1. Permission threshold. The relevant threshold was reasonable arguability. The appellant had to show that it was reasonably arguable that the extradition outcome reached by the district judge was wrong, including in light of the current evidence.
2. Fresh evidence. Updating evidence was properly placed before the court because it would have been misleading to proceed on the basis that the former settled family unit remained intact. However, admission depended on whether the evidence was capable of being decisive in the appellant’s favour. It was not.
3. Article 8 assessment. The court conducted a fresh scrutiny of the changed circumstances. The impact on the appellant’s current partner and her child, including the child’s young age, medical condition and bond with the appellant, required careful consideration. Those factors did not outweigh the strong public interest in extradition.
4. Relevant balancing factors. The index offending was serious and attracted a two-year custodial sentence. The passage of time had a dual effect: it could reduce the public interest weight in extradition while deepening private and family life ties. The appellant’s flight from Poland after being sentenced, and his status as a fugitive, remained relevant to the factual and proportionality assessment.
5. Disposition. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would find the district judge’s outcome wrong. Permission to appeal was refused, and permission to rely on the putative fresh evidence was formally refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. Permission to rely on putative fresh evidence was also refused.
• District Judge Branston: Extradition was ordered on 19 March 2020.
• Cutts J: Permission to appeal was refused on 3 June 2021.