Jakub Kowalewski v Polish Judicial Authority

At the permission stage of an extradition appeal, the court may require further information before deciding whether foreign judicial decisions have materially changed the sentence or offences underpinning an extradition arrest warrant. The court should not assume that abuse of process is the only safeguard where the warrant’s current position is unclear.

On Article 8, lengthy delay, youthful offending, rehabilitation and strong private-life ties do not necessarily outweigh the public interest in extradition. Fugitivity and the seriousness and repetition of the offending may decisively strengthen that public interest, even where the sentence is reduced and permission to appeal is refused.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Clarke on 8 June 2023. The extradition related to convictions and sentences arising from offences committed in Poland when he was aged 17 and 18.

After the extradition order, documents appeared to show that two offences had been discontinued and that the remaining sentences had been re-aggregated into a two-year custodial sentence. The appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence, amend his grounds and obtain permission to appeal on the effect of those developments on the extradition arrest warrant and on section 2 particularisation.

He also sought permission to appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. The court addressed the Article 8 issue finally but adjourned the new issues for a rolled-up hearing.

1. New Polish court decisions and section 2. The court declined both to grant permission to appeal outright and to exclude the putative fresh evidence. The Respondent was required to clarify whether the October 2023 Polish decisions were authentic and whether the extradition arrest warrant had been or would be withdrawn.
2. The court read Zakrzewski v Poland as recognising that the executing court may seek further information. It did not accept that abuse of process was necessarily the only safeguard where later foreign judicial decisions might have altered the offences and sentence supporting extradition. The court therefore adjourned consideration of the fresh evidence, permission to amend, permission to appeal and the substantive issues to a rolled-up hearing.
3. The appellant’s proposed argument was that the section 2 particularisation analysis might revive in light of Alexander v France, following Goluchowski v Poland. That issue was left open for the rolled-up hearing.
4. Article 8. Even assuming that the sentence had been reduced to two years and that only six offences remained, the court concluded that the strong public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the appellant’s private-life interests. Relevant considerations included the seriousness and repetition of the offending, the appellant’s fugitivity, the significant period of custody sought, the absence of an Article 8 family-life case involving innocent third parties, and the serious but proportionate impact of extradition on his established life in the United Kingdom.
5. Permission to appeal on Article 8 was refused. The new issues were adjourned to a rolled-up hearing. Costs were reserved.

The judgment itself records that District Judge Clarke ordered extradition on 8 June 2023 after an oral hearing on 16 May 2023. The present court determined permission-related issues arising from that order.