Damian Paczkowski v Regoinal Court of Szczecin, Poland

The forum bar under Extradition Act 2003, s 19B requires the court first to decide whether a substantial measure of the requested person’s relevant activity was performed in the United Kingdom. If so, the court must consider only the specified interests-of-justice matters in s 19B(3). On appeal from a district judge, the High Court asks whether the judge was wrong, rather than conducting the balancing exercise afresh. A value judgment may be disturbed for legal error, failure to consider a specified matter, consideration of an impermissible matter, or irrationality. Fresh evidence from a requesting state may be admitted where this is in the interests of justice. The appeal was dismissed because the district judge’s conclusion that extradition was not barred by forum was not wrong.

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to face prosecution for three drug-related offences arising from an international organised criminal conspiracy. The sole ground was that extradition was barred by reason of forum under s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003.

The respondent sought to adduce further supplementary information concerning the destination of the drugs, the location and language of the evidence, witnesses and co-defendants, and the possibility of a joint trial in Poland. A previous paper decision had refused admission of that material. The central issues were whether the application could be reconsidered at an oral hearing, whether the supplementary information should be admitted, and whether the district judge’s interests-of-justice assessment was wrong.

1. Fresh evidence. A decision made on the papers refusing admission of evidence may be reconsidered at a subsequent public oral hearing. It is not res judicata, and the renewed application is considered de novo rather than by way of review. An application to admit evidence concerns the substantive appeal, not merely case management. The respondent’s supplementary information was admitted because it confirmed and clarified material matters, caused no material prejudice, and its admission was in the interests of justice.
2. Forum principles. Where the threshold in s 19B(2) is met, the court must consider only the specified matters in s 19B(3). Their relative weight varies with the case. On appeal, the High Court may interfere where the statutory wording has been misconstrued, a specified matter has been ignored, an impermissible matter has been considered, or the overall value judgment is irrational or unreasonable. It must not conduct the primary balancing exercise afresh.
3. Application. The district judge was entitled to find that the threshold was met for Offences 1 and 2, and there was force in the submission that it was also met for Offence 3. That did not affect the result because the judge had considered the interests-of-justice factors in relation to all three offences.
4. The conspiracy was pan-European. The location of intended harm and victims therefore favoured extradition or was not strongly favourable to prosecution in the United Kingdom. The evidence was largely held in Poland, with foreign material already translated into Polish. Transferring and translating approximately 2,500 pages, making charging decisions and dealing with disclosure would cause additional delay in the United Kingdom.
5. Poland was the only feasible jurisdiction in which the appellant and a Polish co-defendant already remanded there could be tried together. The appellant’s strong United Kingdom connections favoured him, but the district judge had given them substantial weight. The overall value judgment was not wrong. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Turnock ordered extradition on 21 April 2022. Permission to appeal was granted on 23 September 2022. The appeal was dismissed.