Marcin Polak v Poland

In an extradition case, delay must be assessed in its factual context. Deliberate fugitivity, particularly where the person knew of the proceedings and was subject to an obligation to provide an address, may provide an acceptable explanation for substantial delay and strengthen the public interest in extradition.

The court must weigh that public interest against private and family life, employment, residence in the United Kingdom and the hardship extradition would cause. Those personal circumstances do not necessarily outweigh the public interest, especially where the offences are serious and the family has managed during remand. Permission to appeal requires an arguable ground.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland in relation to a robbery conviction and sentence, and an alleged assault for which he was to stand trial. An extradition arrest warrant had been issued in 2014 but certified in 2022. The appellant was arrested in September 2022 and extradition was ordered by District Judge Zani on 9 June 2023.

The District Judge found that the appellant had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, knew of the Polish proceedings and had breached an ongoing obligation to notify changes of address. The Judge accepted the explanation for the delay and concluded that the public interest in extradition outweighed the appellant’s private and family life and the hardship to his partner and son. Saini J refused permission to appeal on the papers. The issue was whether any arguable ground justified permission to appeal.

1. Permission to appeal refused. Having considered all the features of the case, including the appellant’s 17½ months of qualifying remand, there was no arguable ground of appeal.
2. The appellant’s deliberate fugitivity was material to the assessment of the 8½-year period between issue and certification of the warrant. He knew of the matters against him, was subject to an ongoing obligation to notify changes of address and had placed himself beyond the reach of the Polish authorities. In that context, the explanation for the delay was acceptable.
3. The public interest in extradition was strong. It was reinforced by the appellant’s fugitivity and the seriousness of the index offences, including a robbery resulting in conviction and an alleged assault requiring trial.
4. The court took account of the appellant’s long residence in the United Kingdom, settled private and family life, employment, partner and son, and the hardship extradition would cause. Those matters were outweighed by the public interest. The partner was the son’s primary carer and had coped while the appellant was on remand.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 9 June 2023.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Saini J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 23 November 2023.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused permission to appeal on 28 February 2024.