Krzystof Jerzy Guzdek v Circuit Court in Kalisz

In an extradition Article 8 assessment, the court may retake the proportionality balance on the person’s current position, including the effect of qualifying remand and the passage of time. The possible availability of early release under foreign law is relevant only where there is a proper factual basis for regarding release as likely or realistically available. A statutory power to release early, without a favourable factual platform, does not materially reduce the strength of the extradition case. Where a substantive appeal would inevitably produce the same proportionality outcome, permission to appeal may be refused and a stay pending related Supreme Court proceedings is unnecessary.

The appellant sought renewed permission to appeal against an extradition decision concerning a conviction Extradition Arrest Warrant issued by the Circuit Court in Kalisz. He relied principally on the passage of time, qualifying remand, his relationship with his young daughter, and the possibility of early release in Poland under article 77 of the Polish Penal Code.

The renewed application followed an extradition order made by DJ Zani on 29 April 2024. Sheldon J later found no viable appeal on the papers. The appellant also sought a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Andrysiewicz v Poland, concerning early release and Article 8 extradition evaluations. The central questions were whether early release had a sufficient factual basis to affect proportionality and whether either permission or a stay should be granted.

1. Current Article 8 balance. The court should approach the case on the basis that the Article 8 balance is retaken on the current facts. That permits consideration of the continuing effect of qualifying remand, the passage of time and all other circumstances.
2. Early release. Taking the appellant’s case at its highest and assuming the most favourable legal approach, the court found no proper factual platform for treating early release as likely. Article 77 of the Polish Penal Code provides a power to release after specified portions of the sentence, but the existence of that power was insufficient. The appellant’s offending history, fugitivity from sentence and subsequent offending in the United Kingdom meant that early release could not even arguably be regarded as likely on the facts.
3. Proportionality and permission. Having regard to the best interests of the appellant’s daughter and the impact of extradition, the court nevertheless concluded that a substantive appeal heard on the current facts would reach the same outcome. The strong public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the factors relied upon under Article 8. It was therefore not reasonably arguable that extradition was disproportionate.
4. Stay. The application for a stay pending Andrysiewicz v Poland was refused. The approach to stays and the competing possible approaches to early release were noted by reference to Marcisz v Poland [2024] EWHC 2441 (Admin), but the present case could be decided without awaiting the Supreme Court’s judgment.
5. The renewed application for permission to appeal and the stay application were both refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): DJ Zani ordered extradition on 29 April 2024. Sheldon J later found no viable appeal on the papers in September 2024.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused renewed permission to appeal and refused a stay pending the Supreme Court proceedings in Andrysiewicz v Poland.