Artur Pawel Michalak v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland

In conviction extradition proceedings, bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, despite proposed or available conditions. The assessment is an independent and fresh appraisal of risk. The court may treat the conviction and the substantial sentence remaining to be served as a powerful incentive to abscond, and may take account of conduct showing awareness of the criminal proceedings and avoidance of responsibility. Family ties, compliance with police, financial security, positive prison conduct, medical circumstances and restrictive conditions must all be weighed, but need not overcome the assessed risk. Bail-risk assessment must remain separate from, and must not influence, the independent assessment of the merits of any extradition appeal.

The applicant sought extradition bail while facing removal to Poland to serve a substantial sentence following conviction for serious fraud offences. His extradition had been ordered by District Judge Creciora on 11 April 2025, and his appeal remained pending. Bail had previously been refused on several occasions by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The applicant relied on his family and life in the United Kingdom, proposed security, compliance with police, positive prison conduct and medical difficulties. The central issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding suitable bail conditions.

1. Application refused. The court was satisfied that substantial grounds existed for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, notwithstanding conditions which could sensibly be imposed.
2. The bail assessment was independent and conducted afresh. The absence of a presumption in favour of bail in a conviction extradition arrest warrant case was not determinative.
3. The substantial sentence remaining to be served created a very real incentive to avoid the penal consequences. For bail purposes, the court was entitled to proceed on the basis that the applicant had been convicted of multiple sophisticated and serious fraud offences. There was no basis for going behind that finding when assessing abscond risk.
4. The court also took account of the findings made at the extradition hearing that the applicant knew of the charges, knew that he would stand trial, and had lived in the United Kingdom with that knowledge. His conduct could therefore be treated as knowingly avoiding responsibility for the matters in issue.
5. The applicant’s family ties, proposed £5,000 security, previous compliance, lack of recent UK convictions, positive prison report and medical condition were material anchoring features. So too were reporting restrictions, electronic monitoring, curfew, passport retention and restrictions on travel. However, those matters did not sufficiently reduce the risk.
6. The court expressly distinguished risk assessment from the merits of the pending appeal. It was not evaluating the appeal’s prospects, and nothing in the bail judgment was to influence the judge who would assess those merits independently at an oral hearing.

The bail application was refused.

The judgment does not state an appellate history for the bail application. It records earlier bail refusals by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 8 and 18 June 2024, 23 December 2024 and 11 June 2025. It also records that permission to appeal had been refused on paper by Jay J on 24 February 2026, with a possible oral renewal remaining.