CO/10686/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2985 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 12 October 2012
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
JANASZEK 
Appellant

v 

POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DISTRICT COURT OF POLAND 

Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr A Harbinson (instructed by Christian Khan) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr N Draycott (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
1.	MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS:  This is an application for bail brought by Ms Janaszek who is currently the subject of extradition proceedings instigated by the Judicial Authority in Poland.  She has made a number of applications for bail in the magistrates' court, all of which have been unsuccessful.  All her applications essentially were premised on the basis that conditions could be imposed which would minimise the risk that the appellant would go to ground and not attend and participate in the legal process.
2.	In opposing the applications in the magistrates' court, the Judicial Authority has taken the view that none of the proposed conditions would alleviate the flight risk and that view has been the view accepted on each occasion by the district judge who has considered the bail application.
3.	This application is brought before the Administrative Court approximately 14 days before the substantive extradition application is to be heard at the magistrates' court.  With his customary frankness, Mr Harbinson has accepted that the appellant faces an uphill task in persuading the magistrates' court that an order for extradition should not be made.  Mr Harbinson submits that, notwithstanding the probability of an extradition order being made, it is nonetheless appropriate to grant bail because such flight risk as exists can properly be minimised to a proper extent by the imposition of conditions, which he suggests should be a security in the sum of £5,000, a residential condition, electronic monitoring and appropriate reporting.  
4.	Miss Draycott submits that those conditions will not minimise to any great extent the risk of non‑attendance because, as she points out at paragraph 8 of her skeleton, this appellant is alleged to have committed many offences involving forged documents and she has been convicted in Poland of theft of another person's identity card.  Miss Draycott submits that those facts in themselves give rise to a real possibility that the appellant would have available to her documentation which would permit her to avoid detection should she decide not to participate in the process and answer to bail.
5.	I have reflected upon this case carefully.  I also take account of the fact that Miss Janaszek's children are being cared for by her elderly parents.  That is clearly a matter to be taken into account.  Nonetheless, in my judgment, it is clear that there is substantial reason to believe that if the appellant was granted bail she would not answer to it, and in that sense extradition might be thwarted or avoided.  She has a very substantial motive for avoiding extradition, a motive which she has never sought to hide.  If, contrary to the belief of her counsel, no order for extradition is made, the appellant will be released in a comparatively short period of time.
6.	  If any application for bail is to be pursued following the making of an extradition order, no doubt the magistrates' court can be appraised perhaps a little more fully of the true difficulties that might exist in elderly parents caring for the appellant's children.  I say that not to raise any hope that bail will be granted on that ground, but the reality is that the information about that aspect of the case is still remarkably sketchy, and certainly not sufficient at this stage to justify the grant of bail.  Accordingly, I refuse this application.