Marcin Ryszard Bednarczyk v Polish Judicial Authority

On an application to vary extradition bail, the High Court determines the matter afresh. Bail conditions may be imposed only where necessary to secure surrender or prevent offending. Where there are substantial grounds for believing that an applicant may abscond, stringent conditions may be justified, including retaining a passport and refusing permission to obtain a replacement. The court may assess the risk by reference to the incentive created by an extradition order, the likely custodial consequences, and reliable findings showing a sustained history of evading legal process. Practical inconvenience, family circumstances, and an undertaking to surrender a passport do not outweigh the risk where the proposed arrangements would facilitate absconding.

The applicant was on conditional bail pending extradition proceedings concerning a conviction warrant and an accusation warrant issued by Polish courts. Westminster Magistrates’ Court had ordered extradition, and the applicant had lodged an application for permission to appeal. He applied under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to vary his bail conditions by obtaining temporary access to his expired passport and permission to apply for a new passport.

The application was opposed on the basis that the passport restrictions were necessary to prevent absconding. The central issue was whether the statutory threshold for imposing or maintaining those conditions was met.

1. Application refused. The court determined the bail application afresh, or de novo, pursuant to section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Bail Act 1976 applied.
2. Under section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976, requirements may be imposed where they are necessary to secure surrender to custody. Under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1, bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would fail to surrender. Under paragraph 8(1), conditions are permissible where necessary to prevent that event. There is no presumption in favour of bail under section 4(2B) where the person is alleged to have been convicted, as applied to the conviction warrant.
3. The extradition order, the outstanding custodial sentence, the possible sentence on the accusation warrant, and the applicant’s previous convictions created a powerful incentive to abscond. The High Court was entitled to take account of the magistrates’ findings of fact, particularly because the district judge had heard and tested the applicant’s evidence.
4. Those findings demonstrated a sustained history of deliberately placing himself beyond the reach of Polish legal process. Releasing the passport or permitting an application for a new passport would facilitate departure from the United Kingdom and therefore created an unacceptable surrender risk.
5. The applicant had not shown that the passport was necessary for the inheritance formalities, since there was no confirmation from the notary that a passport copy marked not for travel or a driving licence was insufficient. The asserted everyday uses of a passport were also insufficient, and an undertaking to surrender a new passport did not remove the risk because the police could not know when it had been delivered and the applicant wished to retain it.
6. The passport-retention condition and refusal of permission to apply for a new passport were necessary to avert the risk of failure to surrender.

The judgment describes several refusals by Westminster Magistrates’ Court to vary the applicant’s bail conditions. The High Court considered the application afresh under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and refused the requested variations.