Bartomiej Glanda v Polish Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 1025 (Admin)
Tomasz Weiss & Anor, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
24 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1256 (Admin)
High Court
Two people facing extradition to Poland challenged a judge's refusal to force the prosecution to hand over documents about why they chose extradition over a UK trial. The higher court said the lower judge was right; the prosecution doesn't have to give up internal documents unless there's clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Key Facts
- •Tomasz Weiss and Adrian Pietraszewski (Claimants) sought judicial review of a District Judge's refusal to issue a witness summons under s 97 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 in their extradition proceedings.
- •Claimants are UK residents facing extradition to Poland for offences related to the death of Andrzej Mucha.
- •The Claimants argued that extradition was barred under s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003 (forum bar) and constituted an abuse of process.
- •The Claimants sought disclosure of documents relating to the CPS's decision to discontinue domestic prosecutions and allow extradition proceedings.
- •The District Judge refused the witness summons, finding the requested material irrelevant.
- •The Claimants argued that the District Judge erred in law by applying an incorrect test of relevance and by failing to consider the relevance of the material to the forum bar.
Legal Principles
Section 97 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 allows for witness summonses if a person is likely to give material evidence and it's in the interests of justice.
Magistrates' Court Act 1980, s 97(1)
Section 97 can be used in extradition proceedings to secure document production in appropriate circumstances.
R (Gambrah) v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWHC 4126 (Admin)
Section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003 sets out the forum bar, requiring consideration of specified matters relating to the interests of justice.
Extradition Act 2003, s 19B
In assessing the forum bar, the court must consider only the specified matters in s 19B(3), without broader evaluation of what is just.
Atraskevic v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Lithuania [2015] EWHC 131 (Admin); Hamilton v Government of the United States of America [2023] EWHC 2893 (Admin)
The prosecutor's belief under s 19B(3)(c) is a factor to be considered, but a review of its basis is limited to issues of irrationality or bad faith.
Piotrowicz v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland [2014] EWHC 3884 (Admin); Dibden v Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille, France [2014] EWHC 3074 (Admin)
An abuse of process claim in extradition requires a showing that abusive conduct may have occurred before disclosure obligations arise.
R (Tollman) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2007] 1 WLR 1157
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review was refused.
The court found the Claimants' arguments were not arguable. The court held that the District Judge's decision was correct in law, and that there was no basis for disclosure of the requested process materials under either the forum bar or abuse of process arguments.