Ratajewski vs Polish Judicial Authority

This case concerned the bail application of Lukasz Ratajewski, who faced extradition to Poland on both conviction and accusation Extradition Arrest Warrants.

TLDR:

• Ratajewski applied for bail in an extradition case.
• The court had to assess the risk of him absconding if released on bail.
• The High Court denied bail, citing substantial grounds for believing he would fail to surrender to custody.

The appellant, Lukasz Ratajewski, faced extradition to Poland under both conviction and accusation Extradition Arrest Warrants. He applied for bail, which had been previously denied by multiple judges at various levels of the judiciary, including Westminster Magistrates' Court and the High Court.

On 5 June 2024, Fordham J considered the application under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The central question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that Ratajewski would fail to surrender to custody if released on bail.

Ratajewski had a history of avoiding accountability, having left Poland in 2004 after being convicted of unlicensed possession of a firearm. He lived in the UK for 20 years under a false identity. His defense argued that he had strong community ties, a stable family life, and no intention of absconding.

However, the court found that the seriousness of the allegations against him, including involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder and drug trafficking, increased the risk of absconding. The court also noted his previous actions of leaving Poland and living under a false identity as indicative of his willingness to avoid legal consequences.

The court considered all the materials presented, including character references and an expert report on the impact of his incarceration on his family. Despite these submissions, the court concluded that the risk of Ratajewski failing to surrender was substantial.

Fordham J emphasized that the proposed bail conditions, including a significant pre-release security, did not mitigate the risk. The decision was consistent with previous rulings by other judges who had also denied bail.

The court's decision underscored the importance of assessing the risk of absconding in extradition cases, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

Legal representatives: David Perry KC and George Hepburne Scott (instructed by Bark & Co & Co) for the Appellant, David Ball (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Fordham J

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1359 (Admin)