AC-2024-LON-003550 - [2025] EWHC 2831 (Admin)

Placed before the court are several conflicting conceptions of the extent to which the appellant was a fugitive and whether that status changed. To begin, the finding of fact made by the Judge is at para 42 (set out in Ground 2, but meriting repetition for convenience here):

“I am satisfied so I am sure from the evidence that I have set out from the judicial authority and from the RP’s in respect of some of the cases that he was aware of the trial dates and failed to attend and by doing so he knowingly and deliberately put himself beyond the reach of the legal process.”

At para 52, the Judge said, “I have already found that the RP is a fugitive at [34-42] above and therefore he cannot rely on section 14.” Later at para 93, the Judge said that “The RP is not a fugitive since the cumulative sentence because the JA knew he was in the UK.” It is for this reason the appellant submits that the Judge “made some inconsistent findings on this issue.”

The appellant also maintains that following arrest, remand and discharge in this jurisdiction, and particularly once the respondent knew the appellant was in the UK, he should not be considered a fugitive. He was within reach of the legal process in Poland. The appellant therefore makes two points (1) a “whereabouts” point; (2) a “process reach” point.

The respondent submits that the appellant was a fugitive in 2015 when he came to the United Kingdom and evaded the Polish legal process. Both of the appellant’s points are misconceived. He remained and remains a fugitive.