Ben Joyes successfully argues that extradition to Poland would violate retrial rights
Retrial rights in Poland: Ben Joyes relies on Stafi v Romania [2023] EWHC 429 (Admin) to resist extradition
On 21 July 2020, Mr M was convicted in his absence of an offence of causing another person to unfavourably dispose of property in 2010, contrary to Article 286(1) of the Polish Criminal Code. Mr M was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment.
Last week, District Judge Leake (DJ) discharged Mr M under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. The DJ found that Mr M was not deliberately absent from his trial. The Polish authorities accepted that Mr M was not entitled to a retrial.
The DJ placed significant weight on Stafi v Romania [2023] EWHC 429 (Admin), in which Yip J ruled that the authorities on section 20 “do not go so far as to suggest that in every case in which a requested person has breached an obligation to notify all relevant authorities of a change of address he will be taken to have deliberately absented himself from any subsequent hearing.”
The Polish authorities asserted that Mr M had breached an address notification requirement. However, the DJ was not satisfied that, even if Mr M had failed to honour such a requirement, his absence was due to a manifest lack of diligence on his part.
The following section of the DJ’s judgment is significant:
“In my judgment, the principle identified by Yip J is clearly engaged. There had already been a long delay between the opening of the investigation in September 2010 and the questioning of the requested person in April 2014. It is significant, in my judgment, that the requested person was produced from prison for the interview, returned to prison afterwards, and then released under probation supervision. As at February 2017 when he left Poland, the investigation had been open for six and half years and the nearly three years had elapsed since he had been interviewed. By the time the proceeding were started, nine years had elapsed.
In my judgment, the period of time which has elapsed is relevant to the question of manifest lack of diligence. It was not unreasonable, in my judgment, for the requested person to believe that there were no outstanding cases when he relocated. In those circumstances, I cannot be sure that his absence from his trial arose from a manifest lack of diligence on his part.”
The CPS did not appeal the DJ’s decision.
Mr M was represented by Ben Joyes of 9BR Chambers. Ben was instructed by Chris Stevens of CJS.
The decision in Stafi v Romania is available here.