‘Fugitive from justice’ who regretted sacking lawyer loses appeal against extradition

Radoslav Kisiel, who was made the subject of a European Arrest Warrant in 2010, also relied on the fact that 14 years had passed since he committed the offence, but the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary refused the appeal after noting that he had been living in Scotland as a “fugitive from justice”.

Lady Paton, Lord Brodie and Lord Turnbull heard that the appellant, who was representing himself having previously dispensed with the services of his lawyer, lodged four grounds of appeal challenging the sheriff’s judgment of November 2017.

Mr Kisiel, who said he regretted dismissing his lawyer, relied on the “overcrowding” in Polish prisons and “potential threats” from the prisoners there; the passage of 14 years since the offence; the fact that he had been living a normal life in Scotland, giving him “a sense of security”; and “ill health” as a bar to extradition.

But the solicitor advocate for the respondent pointed out, in relation to the first ground, that “no evidence” had been placed before the court to disturb the sheriff’s ruling.

In relation to the second ground, the respondent confirmed that the decision involving Mr Kisiel in Poland only became final in May 2010 at a hearing attended by the appellant with a lawyer.

But when notified to attend prison in December 2010, it was found that Mr Kisiel was no longer in Poland and the court authorised a European Arrest Warrant.

The warrant was certified in March 2012, but police were unable to locate Mr Kisiel (ie when using the name “Kisiel” and the addresses which were made available to them), which was an important factor in the sequence of events when considering “passage of time” since the offence.

These events were also relevant for the third ground of appeal, which was the fact that Mr Kisiel claimed he had been living a normal life in Scotland.

But the respondent said Mr Kisiel had been living a normal life in Scotland as “a fugitive from justice”, and it was only when fresh information, names and addresses, were provided to the police in early 2017 that he was able to be found.

In relation to the fourth ground, it was submitted that “no cogent or compelling evidence” had been placed before the court to suggest anything other than custody in convention-compliant conditions with appropriate medical treatment if necessary.

Delivering the opinion of the court Lady Paton said: “In all the circumstances, we agree with the respondent’s submissions. We refuse leave to appeal, and we refuse the appeal.”