Discussion: the instant case
Discussion: the instant case
There is no permission to challenge the Judge’s finding of fact on initial fugitivity, which is in any event admitted. The argument presented is that the appellant’s fugitive status changed. As noted, the submission in the lower court was put on the basis that the requested person ceased being a fugitive from “when the AW was issued in January 2019 to date” because the Polish judicial authorities “knew he was in the UK and there was a delay in certification. The period from 2019 to the date can be therefore considered under section 14.” The two points made by the appellant about whereabouts and process reach are combined Ms Herbert’s succinct encapsulation that “If they know where you are, you are not beyond their reach.” I consider the appellant’s two points in turn before offering a more general discussion.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- Ground 1 ( section 10 )
- Discussion
- Conclusion: Ground 1
- Ground 2 (Section 20)
- Article 4a
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Ground 3 ( Section 14 )
- Fugitivity
- Law
- Pillar-Neumann
- De Zorzi
- Discussion: the instant case
- Point 1: process reach
- Point 2: whereabouts
- General discussion: fugitivity
- Conclusion: fugitivity
- Section 14
- Ground 4 (article 8)
![AC-2024-LON-003550 - [2025] EWHC 2831 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)