Kotwa v District Court of Debica In Poland

An extradition appeal based on alleged breaches of human rights requires cogent evidence establishing the relevant statutory or Convention threshold. For an extraneous-considerations bar under section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant must show a causal link between the warrant, detention, punishment or restriction and the protected characteristic, with a reasonable chance, reasonable grounds or serious possibility of the asserted consequence. An Article 3 challenge requires strong grounds for believing that extradition creates a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. A Category 1 designation supports an inference that the requesting state and its authorities will act in good faith and respect human rights, absent cogent contrary evidence. The appellate court must reach its own conclusion on the evidence.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of sentences for fraud offences. The extradition hearing had involved reliance on sections 13, 14 and 21 of the Act. Before the Divisional Court, the claimant appeared in person and advanced human-rights objections under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He alleged that he would suffer violence and discriminatory treatment in a Polish prison and that imprisonment would disproportionately interfere with his family life.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had not established a bar to extradition.
2. For section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003, the evidential burden required proof of a causal link between the issue of the warrant, detention, punishment or restriction of liberty and the asserted racial ground. The claimant had to show a reasonable chance, reasonable grounds for thinking, or a serious possibility that the relevant consequence would occur. The court adopted the approach in Hilali v the Central Court of Criminal Proceedings No 5 of the National Court of Madrid, [2006] EWHC 762 (Admin).
3. Poland’s status as a European Union member, a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights and a Category 1 territory supported the inference that Poland and those responsible for its prison system would act in good faith and respect human rights, unless cogent evidence showed otherwise.
4. An Article 3 bar required strong grounds for believing that extradition would expose the claimant to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The claimant’s assertions about violence, prison conditions and discriminatory treatment were unsupported. His previous imprisonment in Poland, during which he had experienced no violence, also weakened the asserted risk.
5. The claimant’s Article 8 argument was that imprisonment in Poland would interfere with his family life. Applying the relevant principle identified in Norris v the Government of the United States of America, [2010] UKSC 9 at paragraph 56, the court was not persuaded that extradition would breach Article 8.
6. Although the District Judge’s factual conclusions were open to him, they did not determine the appeal. The Divisional Court was required to reach its own conclusion on the evidence and was not persuaded that there was any prospect of a breach of Articles 3 or 8.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal against the extradition order.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Nicholas Evans ordered extradition to Poland on 28 January 2010.