Lukasz Ratajewski v Polish Judicial Authority

On a repeat bail application in extradition proceedings, the High Court may reconsider the merits. The Bail Act 1976 does not impose a rigid jurisdictional bar or an inflexible requirement to show a material change in circumstances. The court must nevertheless control repeated applications to prevent attempts to obtain a different outcome from a new judge. The question is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that release, even on proposed conditions, would result in failure to surrender. The court assesses risk without making findings of fact belonging to the extradition court. Here, historic evasion of accountability, prolonged use of a false identity, the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s ability to abscond outweighed his family, community and business ties. Bail was refused.

The appellant faced extradition to Poland under both a conviction European Arrest Warrant relating to a firearm conviction and an accusation European Arrest Warrant concerning eight surviving allegations of serious offences. Bail had previously been refused by magistrates and by Farbey J in the High Court. Further applications in the Magistrates’ Court were rejected on the basis that there had been no material change in circumstances.

The appellant applied again under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The issues were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to reconsider bail afresh, whether any threshold of changed circumstances applied, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender if released on the proposed conditions.

1. Jurisdiction. The High Court had jurisdiction to consider the application. Schedule 1 Part 2A §3 of the Bail Act 1976 operated, at most, as an analogical reference-point. It did not create a rigid jurisdictional bar or require a fixed threshold of material change. The High Court must, however, control repeat applications so that its jurisdiction is not used to seek a different bail decision from a new judge.
2. Function and applicable question. Under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the court had to assess whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the appellant would fail to surrender if released on the proposed conditions. The court was not making findings of fact and had to avoid cutting across the fact-finding and evaluative functions of the extradition court. Its task was to evaluate the material and assess risk.
3. Presumptions. The case involved both conviction and accusation warrants. The court put the competing statutory presumptions in favour of, and against, bail to one side and assessed the merits without allowing either presumption to influence the result.
4. Risk assessment. The decisive considerations were the appellant’s departure from Poland after conviction and sentence, his twenty-year use of a false identity, the seriousness of the outstanding allegations, the perceived fragility of resisting extradition, and his resolve, resourcefulness and possible associations. Family ties, business interests, character references, the effects of incarceration and the proposed security did not allay the risk. The same conclusion would have followed even with the higher security previously offered.
5. Disposition. Bail was refused.

The judgment records earlier bail decisions but does not identify an appeal from a lower court decision to this Court.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Bail was refused on several occasions, including decisions on 18 January and 25 January 2024. Further applications were rejected on 5 April and 15 April 2024 as involving no material change in circumstances.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Farbey J refused bail on 7 February 2024. Fordham J considered the merits afresh and refused bail.