Henryk Piotr Siewarga v Regional Court in Zielona Gora, Poland

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, updated remand time requires a fresh proportionality assessment only if it satisfies the statutory conditions for appellate intervention. Where the available information does not permit a safe conclusion about the likely foreign sentence, the court should not resolve factual uncertainty by guesswork or by presuming low harm. Likely penalty may be treated as a neutral factor, with proper weight given to the other specified factors. Remand time is relevant principally insofar as it assists assessment of the likely penalty; it does not nearly extinguish a possible substantial custodial sentence. Seriousness is assessed from the alleged conduct, including culpability, harm and the number of victims. Delay does not, without evidence, establish that the requesting state regards the conduct as less serious.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Minhas on 27 June 2024 for his extradition to Poland on an accusation European arrest warrant concerning two alleged fraud offences committed in 2014.

Permission to appeal was granted on whether the increased period spent on remand meant that extradition had become disproportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. The relevant remand period was seven months. The central issues were whether the updated information satisfied section 27(4), how the likely Polish penalty should be assessed in the absence of sufficient information, and whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently serious to make extradition proportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The increased remand period was treated as new material engaging section 27(4), but a fresh assessment did not lead to a different decision requiring discharge.
2. The District Judge had found that custody was a realistic possibility in Poland, while accepting that a custodial sentence would be unlikely under domestic sentencing assumptions. The court held that the available information was insufficient to form a reliable view of the likely penalty. The warrant did not safely establish matters such as planning, the extent of intended loss or victim impact. The court rejected any presumption that uncertainty should be resolved in the appellant’s favour.
3. In that situation, section 21A(2) did not require a finding on every possible sentencing matter. Matters that could be resolved only by guesswork should not be taken into account. The likely-penalty factor was therefore neutral. Remand time could not determine proportionality because a significant custodial sentence remained possible and it could not be said that seven months would extinguish, or nearly extinguish, the sentence to be served.
4. The alleged conduct was serious. It involved repeated dishonest representations, deception as to identity, money taken from two complainants affecting four people, and promises concerning employment and a new life abroad. The offences were not analogous to the trivial fraud examples in Criminal Practice Direction 50A.5. The delay did not materially reduce seriousness, and no inference could safely be drawn that it reflected the requesting state’s view of the seriousness.
5. Having considered the specified factors under section 21A, the court concluded that extradition remained proportionate. The District Judge would have reached the same conclusion on the updated information.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The court held that the updated remand period did not require the appellant’s discharge.
• District Judge Minhas: An order for extradition to Poland was made on 27 June 2024.