Radziszewski v Circuit Court In Olsztyn

In an extradition case involving Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the relevant question is whether surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of death or serious ill-treatment.

A risk from criminals while the person is at liberty in the requesting state does not, without more, engage those Articles where it results from the person’s own criminal associations. The position differs in custody, because the requesting state controls the prisoner and assumes responsibility for reasonable protection. Available safeguards, including allocation to a safer prison or a vulnerable prisoners’ unit, must be considered realistically. Socially disagreeable detention conditions, without an identified risk of serious harm, do not engage Articles 2 or 3.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Evans at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 November 2009 directing his surrender to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. He had been convicted of robbery, attempted robbery and drug trafficking and sought to serve the balance of his sentences in the United Kingdom.

He claimed that he had assisted a Polish police officer in locating drugs belonging to serious criminals and faced a risk of retaliation. The central issue was whether surrender would be incompatible with his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court was not persuaded that enforcement of the extradition order would create a real risk of contravention of Articles 2 or 3.
2. Any risk to the appellant while at liberty in Poland from criminals seeking revenge for his previous activities did not, on the facts, provide a basis for an Article 2 or Article 3 claim. His criminal associations and the resulting danger were not attributable to detention by the Polish authorities.
3. Different considerations applied to the appellant’s time in custody. Since the Polish authorities would control his detention, they had responsibility for his safety. The decisive question was whether there was a real risk of serious violence or murder in prison.
4. The court assessed that risk in light of the safeguards available. The appellant could raise his concerns with the Central Penitentiary Commission and seek placement in a southern prison, where the asserted risk was lower. Polish prisons also had vulnerable prisoners’ units. The evidence did not establish that the appellant would be unsafe in such a unit.
5. The appellant’s objection that other prisoners in a vulnerable prisoners’ unit would be socially disagreeable, including paedophiles or former police officers, did not itself amount to treatment engaging Articles 2 or 3.
6. The court had no power to direct that the appellant serve his sentence in the United Kingdom. Its function was confined to deciding the lawfulness of the extradition order.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Evans ordered surrender to Poland on 30 November 2009.