Leszek Gwiazdecki v Polish Judicial Authority

When deciding whether to grant extradition bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the court must consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would fail to surrender if conditionally released. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must take account of all the features and circumstances of the case. Proposed safeguards, financial security and medical evidence may reduce risk but do not necessarily overcome substantial grounds for concern. Relevant matters may include the person’s perceived incentive to evade proceedings, the apparent strength of the extradition challenge, and any history of leaving another jurisdiction despite outstanding custodial responsibility.

The appellant sought extradition bail in proceedings concerning an Extradition Arrest Warrant issued by the Polish Judicial Authority. District Judge Sternberg had refused bail on 14 June 2023. The appellant invited the High Court to reconsider the issue, relying on proposed conditions, usual bail safeguards, a £500 pre-release cash security and evidence concerning his medical condition.

The central issue was whether, in all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds for believing that the appellant would fail to surrender if released on conditional bail.

The court considered afresh the question of extradition bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and reached the same conclusion as the District Judge.

1. The statutory question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the appellant would fail to surrender if released on conditional bail. Risk had to be assessed by reference to all the features and circumstances of the case.
2. The proposed bail package, including standard safeguards and £500 cash security, did not remove the substantial grounds for concern. The appellant’s medical condition was also insufficient, in the overall assessment, to allay the risk.
3. The appellant might perceive an imminent opportunity to regularise problems concerning the relationship between the April 2022 warrant and the April 2023 sentence-aggregation order in Poland, or concerning the possible need for further information and an extension of time. He might also regard his prospects at the scheduled extradition hearing as slender, given that the proceedings concerned the balance of a 20-month custodial term.
4. Significant weight was given to the appellant’s previous conduct. He had left Poland for the United Kingdom in 2017 despite knowing of an outstanding 12-month sentence and the activation of a previously suspended 14-month sentence. His continuing ties, including his children, and his relatively recent relationship did not sufficiently answer the absconding concerns.

Conditional bail was refused.

• District Judge: District Judge Sternberg refused extradition bail on 14 June 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On 22 June 2023, Mr Justice Fordham reconsidered the question afresh and refused bail, reaching the same conclusion as the District Judge.