Ireneusz Teodor Polom v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz (Poland)

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, fresh evidence may require the appellate court to reach its own present conclusion, rather than reconstructing what the first-instance judge would have decided. The court should evaluate the new evidence, consider it with the original evidence, identify and weigh factors for and against extradition, and conduct a proportionality assessment.

The strict fresh-evidence test remains relevant, but where later evidence is admitted, the appeal succeeds only if the appellant should be discharged then or now. The public interest in returning a fugitive to a treaty partner to serve a substantial sentence is weighty. Mental-health and self-harm risks, physical illness, delay and curfew conditions must be evaluated contextually. A presumption of necessary medical treatment in custody is rebuttable. Extradition remained proportionate.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Tempia on 24 October 2022 for his extradition to Poland to serve a 30-month sentence for three burglaries. His abuse of process and Article 8 objections were rejected. Psychiatric evidence identified post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicide risk, but not an unmanageable risk.

Permission to appeal was granted on grounds under the Extradition Act 2003, and further psychiatric and neurological evidence was admitted. By the hearing, only the Article 8 ground remained. The central issue was whether, taking account of subsequent health evidence and changes in private life, the extradition order was wrong or current extradition would be disproportionate.

1. Outcome and appellate approach. Mr Polom’s appeal was dismissed. The court applied the approach in Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin) and Re B [2013] UKSC 33: the question was whether the District Judge’s proportionality decision was wrong, including in light of later evidence.
2. Fresh evidence. The court applied the strict two-stage test in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin). The later evidence was admitted because it was capable of affecting the outcome and fairness required the May 2023 report to be evaluated alongside the March 2024 report and subsequent medical material. Following Jozsa v Hungary [2023] EWHC 2404 (Admin), the court reached its own conclusion on whether discharge was required then or now, while retaining the evidential advantage enjoyed by the District Judge.
3. Evidence and relevant factors. The mental-health evidence showed chronic, generally moderate and manageable illness. The 2023 crisis had improved substantially with medication. A rebuttable presumption that Poland would provide necessary treatment in custody applied, and there was no evidence to rebut it. The past stroke caused moderate symptoms, had a good prognosis and did not make extradition medically unsafe. The rift with the appellant’s son, loneliness, sexuality-related fears, curfew and delay were relevant but insufficiently particularised or weighty.
4. Balancing exercise. The public interest in returning a fugitive to a treaty partner to serve an outstanding sentence remained constant and weighty. The finding of fugitivity, the 30-month sentence, lack of dependants and criminal record strengthened that interest. Delay was not culpable on the evidence. Curfew was fact-sensitive; the present circumstances were distinguishable from Brindusa v Romania [2023] EWHC 3372 (Admin) and closer to Bakai v Slovakia [2024] EWHC 1768 (Admin).
5. The District Judge’s decision was neither wrong when made nor disproportionate on the updated evidence. The appeal against extradition was dismissed. The court nevertheless stressed the need for UK and Polish authorities to exchange full medical records and maintain appropriate risk management throughout the extradition process.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — In [2024] EWHC 2708 (Admin), Mrs Justice Collins Rice dismissed the appeal and upheld the extradition order.
2. District Judge Tempia — On 24 October 2022, ordered extradition to Poland after rejecting abuse of process and Article 8 objections.