Leszek Maciej Gwiazdecki v Polish Judicial Authority

In deciding whether to grant permission to appeal in an extradition case, the court will not project the likely period of qualifying remand forward to a substantive hearing unless there is an independently durable feature anchoring the argument. A very short period left to serve does not, without more, justify discharge. The court must assess whether the proposed ground is reasonably arguable, including where an Article 8 argument relies on the passage of time in extradition custody.

The appellant challenged District Judge Snow’s order of 27 October 2023 requiring his extradition to Poland. He relied principally on the effect of qualifying remand served in the United Kingdom, which reduced the remaining custodial period, and also challenged findings concerning his health, family support and fugitive status.

The issue was whether any ground of appeal, including an Article 8 argument based on the further passage of qualifying remand, was reasonably arguable.

1. Permission refused. The appellant’s proposed grounds, individually and in combination, disclosed no reasonably arguable Article 8 ground of appeal.
2. The finding that the appellant had left Poland as a fugitive was unassailable. The absence of travel restrictions, his open residence in the United Kingdom and his participation in the sentence-aggregation application did not undermine the District Judge’s findings. It was open to the judge, having heard and tested the evidence, to find that the appellant knew of both sentences when he left Poland.
3. The appellant’s qualifying remand could not found permission to appeal. Applying the reasons given in Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin), the court would not project the position forward to a substantive hearing without an independently durable anchoring feature. The further period of remand meant that only about six weeks remained to serve, but that did not arguably fall within the very short period capable of justifying discharge.
4. The District Judge had also made findings adverse to the appellant’s uncorroborated evidence concerning his serious heart condition and financial support for his children. The public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the considerations capable of counting against it.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal from the extradition order was refused.
• District Judge Snow: On 27 October 2023, ordered the appellant’s extradition after an oral hearing.