Leszek Bialy v Regional Court of Ostroleka, Poland

In an extradition appeal, the court does not determine guilt or innocence. It applies the statutory and Convention tests to identify whether extradition is barred. A challenge to the sufficiency or source of prosecuting evidence will not succeed where the accusation and extradition warrant identify the alleged conduct and controlled drugs. Passage of time does not bar extradition without culpable delay or resulting injustice or oppression. Under Article 8, the court must weigh the interference with private and family life against the public interest in extradition. Serious alleged offending may give rise to strong public interest factors which outweigh substantial domestic and family connections.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland made by District Judge Tempia on 23 August 2023 after an oral hearing. He faced allegations of drug trafficking between 2012 and 2016 involving at least 3kg of amphetamines.

He disputed the Polish evidence, raised dual criminality issues concerning toxicology, relied on the passage of time and Article 8, and sought to rely on documents concerning unsuccessful attempts in Poland to revoke a preventive measure. He also argued that less coercive measures should have been used. The central questions were whether any statutory or Convention bar to extradition existed and whether permission to appeal or to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.

1. Appeal and fresh evidence. Fordham J refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. The proposed fresh evidence was also refused because it was incapable of being decisive. No costs order was made.
2. Nature of extradition proceedings. The court’s function was not to decide guilt or innocence. It was to apply the relevant legal tests and determine whether any bar to extradition arose. The appellant had had ample opportunity to present his case, including with legal representation before the district judge.
3. Dual criminality and evidence. The challenge based on toxicology was properly rejected. The Extradition Arrest Warrant expressly identified the drugs concerned as amphetamine. Criticism of the adequacy or source of the Polish evidence did not establish a bar to extradition.
4. Passage of time. The district judge had correctly considered the chronology and found no culpable delay. Although the appellant was not proved to have been a fugitive, extradition was not thereby rendered unjust or oppressive.
5. Article 8. The passage of time was properly included in the Article 8 balance-sheet exercise, alongside the appellant’s residence in the United Kingdom, good character, relationship with his partner, family connections and financial support for his children in Poland. The strong public interest in extradition, arising in the context of serious alleged drug-trafficking offences, clearly outweighed the factors against extradition. The interference with private and family life was not exceptionally serious so as to reverse that conclusion.
6. The refusal by the Polish Judicial Authority to use less coercive measures did not create a bar to extradition. Any application capable of ending or affecting the Polish prosecution remained a matter for the Polish proceedings.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused renewed permission to appeal against the extradition decision and refused permission to adduce fresh evidence.
• District Judge Tempia: ordered extradition to Poland on 23 August 2023 following an oral hearing on 18 August 2023.