Martyna Debicka v Regional Court In Gdansk (Poland)

The jurisdiction to reopen an extradition appeal is exceptional. It is available only where reopening is necessary to avoid real injustice, the circumstances are exceptional, and there is no alternative effective remedy.

The jurisdiction is not a means of correcting arguments or evidence which could have been advanced on appeal, or of having a second attempt at the appeal. A subsequent reduction in sentence will not justify reopening where it does not realistically alter the proportionality assessment. A fresh point concerning possible early release may likewise be rejected where it was not raised earlier and does not establish real injustice.

The applicant had been ordered to be extradited to Poland to serve sentences for drug and burglary offences. Her appeal under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was dismissed by the High Court on 19 December 2024: [2024] EWHC 3303 (Admin).

After the appeal, the Polish sentences were combined, reducing the total sentence from two years and six months to one year and nine months. The applicant sought permission to reopen the appeal, relying on the reduced sentence and on a possible entitlement to early release under Polish law, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland.

The central issue was whether those developments satisfied the demanding test for reopening an appeal.

1. The application was refused. Under rule 50.27(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, reopening required a real injustice, exceptional circumstances making reopening appropriate, and no alternative effective remedy. The jurisdiction was not intended to permit an unsuccessful party to regroup after losing an appeal or to have another attempt at arguments, evidence or material which could have been advanced earlier.

2. The applicant had not explained why the combined sentence, imposed before the appeal judgment, was not disclosed during the appeal. Her silence followed by prompt disclosure after the appeal had been dismissed bore the hallmarks of an attempt to have another go. That was not an appropriate basis for reopening.

3. In any event, the reduction in sentence could not realistically affect the article 8 conclusion. The earlier judgment had found that the applicant’s fugitive status, the public interest in extradition, and the nature of the offending outweighed her age at the time of the offences and the impact on her child. Nothing before the court cast doubt on those findings. The amalgamation of sentences did not show that the Polish authorities regarded the offences as less serious, and it was not the court’s function to impose its own view of whether a suspended sentence should have been imposed.

4. The early-release argument also failed. It had not been raised before the district judge or on appeal, and no explanation was given for the delay. Even taking the applicant’s case at its highest, she would still serve a significant period of imprisonment before any possible release. Extradition for that purpose did not amount to real injustice.

5. The reopening test was distinct from the test applied on the original appeal. The application was therefore refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order was dismissed on 19 December 2024: [2024] EWHC 3303 (Admin).
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Clews ordered the applicant’s extradition on 28 November 2022.