Piotr Bocianski v Poland

Piotr Bocianski v Poland

Stage 1 presence is satisfied because the appellant's instructed lawyer attended and advanced the appeal in the District Court in May 2018 on his behalf; this constitutes presence for s.20 purposes, and there is no ambiguity or contradiction in the ExAW or supporting evidence.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Piotr Bocianski; Respondent: Poland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Conviction Extradition, Fair Trial Rights, Presence at Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Section 20 Extradition Act 2003
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Conviction Extradition Fair Trial Rights Presence at Trial Article 6 ECHR Section 20 Extradition Act 2003

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piotr Bocianski

Appellant

Poland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was convicted in his presence for purposes of s.20(1) Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the alteration of sentence on appeal in the District Court was merits-evaluative or automatic/arithmetical
  3. 3 Whether presence by instructed lawyer satisfies the requirement of presence at trial

Ratio Decidendi

Stage 1 presence is satisfied because the appellant's instructed lawyer attended and advanced the appeal in the District Court in May 2018 on his behalf; this constitutes presence for s.20 purposes, and there is no ambiguity or contradiction in the ExAW or supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • permission to adduce fresh evidence from advocate Banach granted
  • permission to adduce further Teampol letters refused