Lewczuk, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court In Lublin Poland

In extradition proceedings, a requested person must provide evidence of exceptional circumstances particular to him and the institution in which he would be imprisoned before the court will prevent extradition on Article 3 grounds. Convention states are presumed to comply with their obligations, and ordinary prison-condition concerns should normally be pursued in the requesting state or before the European Court of Human Rights. Article 8 does not ordinarily prevent extradition merely because imprisonment will affect family or private life. Delay will bar extradition only where the established principles governing unjust delay are satisfied. A possible future application in the requesting state to suspend a sentence did not invalidate the extradition order.

The claimant appealed under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland, a Category 1 territory. The European Arrest Warrant concerned a two-year sentence for robbery imposed in Poland in 2003. Before the magistrates’ court, an argument based on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected. The claimant also relied in the High Court on his wife’s pregnancy, delay since conviction, and attempts in Poland to suspend the sentence. The central issues were whether those matters constituted a bar to extradition.

1. Article 3. The appeal court summarised the applicable approach. There is a presumption that states which have signed the European Convention will honour their obligations towards requested persons. Concerns about prison conditions should normally be raised in the requesting state and, if necessary, before the European Court of Human Rights. Domestic intervention requires exceptional circumstances particular to the requested person and the institution in which he would be imprisoned. The material supplied about overcrowding established no such circumstances, so this ground failed.
2. Article 8. Imprisonment frequently interferes with private and family life. The ordinary consequences of imprisonment, including the pregnancy of a wife, do not ordinarily justify disrupting the criminal justice process or preventing extradition.
3. Delay. Although the delay ground had not been raised before the district judge, the court considered Kakis v the Government of Cyprus [1978] 1WLR 779 and Gomes v the Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21. Applying the principles in those authorities, there was no basis for concluding that extradition would be unjust by reason of the passage of time.
4. Possible sentence suspension. The claimant’s evidence suggested that he might make a further application in Poland to suspend his sentence. That possibility did not affect the validity of the existing extradition order. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the district judge’s order for extradition.