Lukasz Grad v Regional Court In Rybnik

Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that the substantive decision will be overturned. In assessing that prospect, the court may uphold findings that delay was explained by the appellant’s conduct and the requesting state’s continuing pursuit. Youth at the time of offending, family impact, rehabilitation and the passage of time may be outweighed by the public interest in extradition where the offending is serious and the delay is not culpable.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against District Judge Bristow’s order of 14 November 2023 requiring his extradition to Poland. The extradition request concerned activation of a suspended two-year sentence imposed in Poland in 2013 for 19 non-domestic burglary and attempted burglary offences committed in 2004.

The appellant relied on the age of the original offending, the passage of time, family consequences and subsequent rehabilitation. The Administrative Court considered whether there was any realistic prospect that the District Judge’s balancing exercise and decision to order extradition would be overturned.

1. Permission refused. The court could see no realistic prospect that the substantive outcome would be overturned.
2. The passage of time did not provide a realistic basis for interference. It was explained by the appellant’s return to the United Kingdom as a fugitive after sentencing, his failure to notify the Polish authorities of a change of address, later offending and failure to pay compensation, and the Polish authorities’ continuing determination to pursue the sentence. There was no false sense of security or culpable delay.
3. The appellant’s age, eighteen and on the cusp of adulthood when the index offences were committed, was relevant to the original suspended sentence and to the assessment of seriousness. The subsequent family impacts, including severe effects on a child, and the evidence that he had turned a corner from about 2019 were also material considerations.
4. Those factors had been decisively outweighed by the public interest in extradition. The District Judge’s findings were unimpeachable, and no arguable error sufficient to justify permission was identified.

Permission to appeal was refused on 16 May 2024.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal refused on 16 May 2024.
• District Judge Bristow: On 14 November 2023, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland after an oral hearing.