Zygmunt v District Court In Gdansk (Poland)

Amelia Nice (instructed by Armstrong Solicitors) for the Appellant The Respondent did not appear and was not represented Hearing date: 17/2/22 ____________________

vi) A further key feature relevant to impact is the fact that the Appellant has a recognised health issue: a virus called HPV. Although common and although most people will have it at some point in their lives without knowing, and although it usually goes away on its own, this can sometimes be long-lasting and may cause abnormal cells in the cervix which can over time turn into cancer if left untreated. All of this is set out in putative fresh evidence, a letter dated 27 January 2022 from the NHS cervical screening administration service.

vii) In the light of all of those features, and the other circumstances of the case, the "outcome" in this case was the "wrong" one. It stands to be overturned at a substantive hearing by this Court. For the purposes of the present application for permission to appeal the threshold is one of reasonable arguability and that threshold is met.

i) This is something which presents as a 'less intrusive' alternative to extradition. The concept of 'less intrusive measures' is well known to the human rights application of proportionality standards, including in the context of Article 8. In the extradition field, similar concepts such as "less coercive measures" can be located, having a distinct role and place within the statutory scheme.

I agree. If I posit this Court conducting afresh the balancing exercise, including by reference to all of the putative fresh evidence, there is in my judgment no realistic prospect of the Court overturning the Judge's conclusion as wrong and discharging the Appellant. Permission to appeal is refused.