Tomasz Wisniewski v Regional Court of Torun, Poland

Permission to appeal in extradition proceedings requires a reasonably arguable ground. A finding that the requested person left the requesting state as a fugitive may be decisive against an argument that extradition is unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time. It is also highly material to the Article 8 proportionality assessment. Long residence in the United Kingdom and family ties do not necessarily outweigh the public interest in extradition where the offences are serious, a substantial sentence remains, and the person deliberately evaded serving it. Fresh evidence will not be admitted where it has no realistic prospect of affecting the outcome.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve an aggregate sentence of four years and 33 days for nine shop burglaries committed between 2000 and 2002. A District Judge ordered extradition on 1 December 2023 following an oral hearing.

The proposed appeal relied on section 14 of the applicable extradition legislation and Article 8. The appellant challenged findings that he had left Poland as a fugitive and relied on the passage of time, his long residence in the United Kingdom, and his family life with his partner and adult son. He also sought to adduce recently filed health evidence. The central issues were whether any ground of appeal was reasonably arguable and whether the fresh evidence could affect the Article 8 assessment.

1. The court refused permission to appeal. The District Judge’s finding that the appellant had left Poland in 2004 to avoid serving his sentences was unassailable. That finding was fatal to the section 14 argument and materially strengthened the public interest in extradition for the purposes of Article 8.

2. The passage of time did not substantially diminish the public interest. Although the appellant had lived in the United Kingdom for many years and his partner and adult son were also here, the offences were multiple and serious, committed with others, and more than four years of imprisonment remained to be served. The appellant had deliberately absented himself from the jurisdiction and begun a new life in the United Kingdom. The public interest included avoiding the United Kingdom being perceived as a safe haven for fugitives.

3. The unexplained periods between the passport application and the issue of the extradition warrant, and between the warrant and its certification, did not make the District Judge’s conclusion arguably wrong. The distinction between the embassy and the authorities pursuing the appellant was relevant.

4. The court formally refused permission to rely on the fresh evidence. The material was filed belatedly and, even after consideration, had no realistic prospect of being decisive or of showing that the Article 8 evaluative outcome was wrong or had become wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused permission to appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order and refused permission to rely on fresh evidence.
• District Judge: ordered extradition on 1 December 2023 after an oral hearing on 20 October 2023.