Tyrakowski v Regional Court In Poznan, Poland

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the extradition of the Appellant to Poland pursuant to two European arrest warrants (EAW1 and EAW2). EAW1 relates to a conviction in absentia for attempted burglary in 2007, resulting in a sentence of one year and six months. EAW2 relates to two cases involving fraud, theft, and burglary offences committed between 2000 and 2007, with a prior sentence of three years imprisonment for offences in 2000. The Appellant was arrested in Dorset in October 2016 and extradition hearings took place at Westminster Magistrates Court in late 2016 and early 2017. The Appellant resisted extradition primarily on the basis that he was not deliberately absent from his trial under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) in relation to EAW1 and raised human rights arguments under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The District Judge rejected these submissions, and the Appellant appeals only the section 20 finding concerning EAW1, conceding extradition under EAW2 would proceed regardless.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant deliberately absented himself from the trial in Poland for the offences underlying EAW1, as required to bar extradition under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Whether the Judicial Authority proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was properly summonsed to his trial, a necessary precondition for deliberate absence under the European arrest warrant framework.
3. Whether the Appellant would be entitled to a retrial in Poland if extradited, relevant if deliberate absence is not established.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant was not deliberately absent from his trial because there was no evidence he was summonsed to the trial underlying EAW1.
• Without proof of summons, the Judicial Authority cannot prove deliberate absence beyond reasonable doubt.
• If deliberate absence is not established, the court must consider whether the Appellant would receive a retrial, which counsel argued he would not.
• The notification of conviction sent to the Appellant was returned uncollected, and the 30-day period to apply for retrial is ambiguous and possibly expired.

Respondent's Arguments

• The District Judge correctly found that the Appellant deliberately absented himself by leaving Poland without notifying authorities and avoiding trial.
• It can be reasonably inferred that the Appellant was summonsed, as issuing summonses is standard procedure in Polish courts.
• The Judicial Authority sent multiple letters to the Appellant’s last known address, including the summons, which were not received due to the Appellant’s own conduct.
• The Appellant’s conduct amounted to a waiver of his right to be present at trial, justifying extradition without the need to consider retrial rights.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the chronology and evidence relating to the Appellant's conduct surrounding the offences and subsequent trial. The District Judge found the Appellant deliberately absented himself from his trial by leaving Poland without notifying authorities and avoiding participation in criminal proceedings, a finding supported by the Appellant’s inconsistent evidence and admissions. The court emphasized that under section 20 EA 2003, deliberate absence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Judicial Authority.

The Appellant’s argument that he was not summonsed was acknowledged, noting that EAW1 did not explicitly state summons had been served, unlike EAW2. However, the court accepted the inference that summons would have been issued as a matter of normal procedure and that letters, including the summons, were sent to the Appellant’s last known address but were not received due to his own avoidance. This conduct amounted to a waiver of the right to be present at trial.

The court also engaged with relevant EU and Strasbourg jurisprudence concerning trials in absentia and the conditions under which extradition may be refused. It concluded that the Appellant’s deliberate absence was established by his own fault, consistent with the principles in Cretu, Zagrean, and Stryjecki. The court found no need to consider the right to a retrial because deliberate absence was proven, ending the inquiry under section 20.

In assessing the appeal, the court applied the standard of review set out in Wiejak, respecting the District Judge's factual findings and credibility assessments, and found no basis to overturn the decision.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the District Judge’s determination that the Appellant deliberately absented himself from his trial in Poland, thereby justifying extradition under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. This decision means the Appellant remains subject to extradition on both EAW1 and EAW2. The ruling does not establish new precedent but affirms the application of established legal principles regarding deliberate absence, proof of summons, and the rights of defendants tried in absentia within the European arrest warrant framework.