Abramowicz, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Bialystok, Poland

An appeal from an extradition decision is not a rehearing. It succeeds only where the first-instance judge made an error of law. For a country trusted under the statutory scheme to protect prisoners and Convention rights, extradition will be refused on safety grounds only in very extreme circumstances, such as proof that the relevant protective system has been overthrown or is not operating. Generally inferior prison conditions and historic threats are insufficient without evidence of a current real risk and inability of the requested state to provide protection. Article 8 private and family life will prevent extradition only in exceptional circumstances.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland of assault and robbery and was liable to serve two periods of imprisonment. Poland issued a European Arrest Warrant, which was certified in the United Kingdom under section 2 of the relevant Act. The District Judge ordered extradition after rejecting the appellant’s contention under section 21 that threats in Polish custody created a risk to his life and safety.

On appeal, the appellant relied on further matters, including suicidal thoughts, historic threats, and his private and family life in the United Kingdom. The central issues were whether the District Judge had erred in law, whether the new material justified refusing extradition, and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights.

1. The application was dismissed. An appeal from a District Judge’s extradition decision is not a fresh decision on the merits. The High Court may intervene only for an error by the District Judge, although it remains alert to material matters not raised below, particularly where an unrepresented appellant raises them.
2. Poland was a country trusted under the statutory extradition scheme to protect prisoners and vindicate Convention rights. That assumption could be displaced only by very extreme circumstances. Following the approach described in Rot v District Court of Lublin [2010] EWHC 1820, the relevant threshold would be met only where the protective system had been overthrown and was not operating.
3. The appellant had produced no evidence of a current real threat. Historic threats, general evidence that Polish prison conditions might be worse than those in England, and an inability to show a fresh claim did not establish that the Polish authorities could not protect him if a threat materialised.
4. The Article 8 claim failed. The appellant’s established private life and relationship with his young son attracted sympathy, but nothing in the circumstances was exceptional. If such circumstances alone prevented extradition, the same reasoning would apply to most persons returned to their country of origin to serve lawful sentences.
5. The court also indicated that the unsolicited disclosure of counsel’s advice by the appellant’s former solicitors was improper because privilege had not been waived. The application was dismissed and the appellant remained liable to extradition, subject to the statutory time for seeking certification of a point for the Supreme Court.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal from the District Judge’s extradition decision.
2. District Judge, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: ordered extradition after rejecting the appellant’s section 21 safety objection.