Maciej Wloch v Polish Judicial Authority

On a bail appeal in an accusation extradition case, the court must assess the risk of absconding afresh. A statutory presumption in favour of bail does not require release where there are very substantial grounds for believing that the defendant will abscond. Bail conditions and proposed security must be assessed in their evidential context. Serious allegations, the prospect of a substantial custodial sentence, unexplained or questionable security arrangements, apparent family mobility and the use of false identity documents may cumulatively establish an unacceptable absconding risk.

The applicant was wanted for extradition to Poland to face trial on 123 alleged offences, principally involving an organised telephone fraud targeting elderly people, together with an alleged money-laundering offence. District Judge Turnock had refused bail on 15 June 2023. On the renewed bail appeal, the applicant relied on the statutory presumption in favour of bail, his family and UK ties, proposed pre-release security of £70,000 and restrictive conditions including electronic monitoring.

The central issue was whether, assessing the merits afresh, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would abscond if released.

1. Outcome. The application for bail was refused. The court was satisfied that there were very substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would seek to abscond if released.
2. The court’s function on a bail appeal was to consider the bail merits afresh and to assess risk. It was not making findings of fact or predictive findings about the legal merits of the applicant’s substantive objections to extradition.
3. The seriousness of the allegations was material to risk. The alleged offences involved vulnerable people, and conviction could lead to a very substantial custodial sentence. That created a strong incentive to abscond.
4. The proposed £70,000 pre-release security did not sufficiently reduce the risk. Its significance was tempered by the allegation that substantial sums had been received in the United Kingdom. The bank transfers, loan documents and unexplained arrangements raised clear concerns about the provenance of the money and whether the applicant could arrange for a substantial sum to be at risk.
5. The applicant’s partner and four children were relevant considerations, but the evidence did not provide a strong anchoring feature. The proposed accommodation and the apparent mobility of the family weakened the claimed ties.
6. The applicant’s use of a false identity on arrest, and the production of a Polish identity document bearing his photograph but another name and date of birth, strongly suggested attempted evasion and access to false documentation. In the court’s assessment, those circumstances undermined confidence that bail conditions would secure attendance.
7. The proposed prohibitions on identity documents, travel and travel hubs, electronic monitoring and residence requirements did not allay the cumulative concerns. The decision on the merits of the extradition objections remained for the extradition judge.

• District Judge Turnock: bail refused on 15 June 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the bail merits were considered afresh and bail was refused.