Bartomiej Glanda v Polish Judicial Authority

Extradition proceedings do not provide a further appeal against the safety of a foreign conviction. Resistance based on an alleged unfair trial requires evidence capable of establishing a flagrant denial of the right to a fair hearing, a demanding threshold. Previous domestic appeals and disagreement with the evidence ordinarily do not meet that test. Article 8 considerations require assessment of the individual’s connections and the public interest in extradition, including the seriousness of the offences and the remaining sentence. The existence of a possible investigation by an ombudsman does not itself provide a basis for resisting extradition.

The appellant, aged 29, was wanted for extradition to Poland following convictions for rape and threats to kill arising from offences committed in 2016. He had been present at some hearings, represented in his absence at others, and had pursued two unsuccessful appeals in Poland.

District Judge Tempia ordered extradition, finding no basis for concluding that the proceedings involved a flagrant denial of a fair hearing and no violation of Article 8 ECHR. The appellant sought permission to appeal, relying on the safety of his conviction, the independence of the Polish courts, his circumstances in the United Kingdom, and an alleged ombudsman investigation.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The appeal had no realistic prospect of success, and none of the appellant’s points disclosed an arguable ground of appeal.
2. Extradition proceedings are not an appeal against conviction. The appellant had already used two appellate routes in Poland to challenge the safety of his conviction, including evidential matters. The extradition threshold for resisting surrender on fair-trial grounds is the high threshold of a flagrant denial of justice. No evidence before the court was capable of meeting it.
3. The independence of the Polish courts had been considered in test extradition cases. The appellant advanced no viable legal point on that issue. The asserted involvement of an ombudsman likewise provided no basis for resisting extradition.
4. The Article 8 assessment did not provide an arguable ground. The appellant had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, there had been no significant delay in pursuing him, and his family ties consisted principally of a sister and brother in the United Kingdom. Against those considerations stood strong public interests in extradition, including the seriousness of the offences and approximately 16 months remaining to serve after credit for qualifying remand.
5. The judge agreed with District Judge Tempia’s conclusions and with Johnson J’s refusal of permission on the papers on 29 September 2023.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal refused by Fordham J on 1 May 2024.
• District Judge Tempia: Ordered extradition, finding no flagrant denial of a fair hearing and no breach of Article 8 ECHR.
• High Court: Johnson J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 29 September 2023.