AC-2023-LON-000173 - [2025] EWHC 1897 (Admin)

Making a comparison between this case and Jasvins, DJ Minhas summarised the litigation history:

“29.

I considered the circumstances of this case. Ms Hill represented the RP in the previous proceedings. She was not involved at the initial hearing after arrest, but confirmed that to her knowledge, the s20 issue was raised when the SoI (presumably alongside the proof of evidence which stated the RP could not recall being present at trial) was provided on 5 April 2022, with the hearing listed on 25 April 2022. The judgment of DJ Godfrey did not allude to an application to adjourn nor his reasoning for refusing the application. Ms Hill submitted the JA did not seek further information nor make an application to adjourn prior to the day of hearing. Ms Burton had access to Counsel’s notes from the hearing in April 2022, she did not challenge the account provided by Ms Hill.

30.

The judgment of DJ Godfrey recorded in paragraph 39, the consensus between Counsel that there was insufficient material before him to conclude s20 of the Act had been complied with. He discharged the RP for the two offences to which the s20 argument related. On the information before me, unlike Jasvins or Giese, there was no failure to respond to an order of the Court. There was no suggestion that the information was sought from the JA and they failed to respond in time. It was not requested at all. This is not a case where orders were made, and the presumption that they will be complied with was not adhered to. I acknowledge the information should have been contained within the AW upon issue. There is a clear line of authorities that the AW can be considered alongside further information, if provided. The JA were not afforded the opportunity to obtain further information on this specific point. There is no doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel. There is no barrier to a second AW being issued. I draw a clear distinction between the circumstances of Jasvins and this case because there was no failure to comply with a direction or order of the Court. In my view, the remedy available to the JA was to re-issue the AW with the missing information, which they have done in a timely manner.”

The DJ concluded:

“31.

I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the JA have issued this AW to usurp the statutory regime nor that the integrity of the regime relating to AWs had been impugned. For reasons unknown, the original AW was incomplete. The JA did not have a realistic opportunity to supplement the AW on the s20 issue after it was raised. The proceedings were concluded on the information available. The statutory regime permitted a second request. There is no evidence of any bad faith by the JA. The only explanation for DJ Godfrey’s reasoning is Counsel’s note from the hearing, as set out within the SoI at paragraph 10. DJ Godfrey had regard to the fact that the JA were taken directly to the issue on 5 April 2022, that it was overlooked by them, the special objective in extradition proceedings, the provisions within TaCA whereby the expectation is that hearings are conducted within 60 days of arrest and the impact on the RP who had privately instructed representation.

32.

I do not find the JA may be manipulating or using the procedure of the court to oppress or unfairly prejudice the RP. Further information on the s20 point was not requested from the JA in the first proceedings. In my view, there is no prejudice to the RP in the proceedings in the UK. He can respond in full to the information contained within the re-issued AW. I further find there is no prejudice to the RP upon return. The RP’s position was that he could not remember whether he was present, and whether re-trial rights were applicable. It transpired; the RP was not present at trial but was present at the sentence hearing, so the issue of re-trial rights was not applicable to him.

…

34.

I agree with the submission of Ms Hill that there will be a stage at which the RP is entitled to finality in proceedings, rather than having the same issues re-litigated with the associated expense and stress caused by repeat proceedings. In my view, this RP in the context of these proceedings, is not at that stage given the Court did not have the full detail before it in the first proceedings. If the JA had had the opportunity to address the s20 evidential lacuna, and failed to do so, then I would agree with the submissions of Ms Hill, that the JA were seeking to circumvent the decision of DJ Godfrey. In this instance, given the issue was raised not long before the first hearing and there were no orders of the court in place that the JA had failed to comply with, I am of the view that the RP has not established the re-issue of the AW is an abuse of process nor that these proceedings have resulted in unjust oppression of the RP to amount to an abuse of process.”

The DJ also ruled that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 rights, evaluating the factual matters to be balanced in 12 sub-paragraphs. I will make specific reference only to those that appear particularly important.

At 51(ii) she said:

“The totality of the RP’s offending is serious notwithstanding the passage of time since offending and conviction.”

In the same paragraph, as to delay, she continued:

“I acknowledge the age of the original offending and acknowledge that it is a factor mitigating against extradition but I place little weight on it, in view of the nature of the original offences.”

She also said at 51(iv) that there was “no notable delay in the judicial process in Poland” and that the appellant as a fugitive contributed to delay by leaving Poland.

At 51(vi)-(viii) she focused on the impact of extradition on the appellant’s family and found that the consequences would not be exceptionally severe. She found at 51(xii) that overall, “the hardship and impact which will result from extradition does not go beyond that which is often present when extradition is ordered”.