Pisarek v Regional Court In Elblag 11

A European Arrest Warrant must be read with the statutory modifications applicable to multiple offences. A failure to provide the warrant promptly does not automatically invalidate extradition proceedings where the court properly exercises its discretion and no relevant prejudice is shown. An Article 3 objection based on prison conditions requires substantial grounds for believing that the individual would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Evidence of structural overcrowding and a past breach concerning another prisoner is insufficient without a fact-specific assessment of the present risk to the person whose extradition is sought.

The claimant appealed against an order of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 15 January 2010 requiring his extradition to Poland. He had been sentenced in Poland in his absence to 18 months’ imprisonment for assault and drug offences.

The grounds concerned the form and service of the European Arrest Warrant, absence of legal representation at the extradition hearing, and alleged risks under Articles 3 and 6. The Article 8 ground was abandoned. The central issues were whether the warrant complied with the Extradition Act 2003, whether the procedural defects required discharge, and whether return to Poland created a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment because of prison overcrowding.

1. European Arrest Warrant. The warrant complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Section 2(6)(e) had to be read with the modifications specified in the Schedule to the Multiple Offences Order 2003 and with sections 10 and 65. It was unnecessary for the warrant to specify separate sentences for each offence in the circumstances.
2. Failure to provide the warrant. The claimant had not been supplied with the warrant as soon as reasonably practicable, contrary to section 4. The magistrates nevertheless had a discretion whether to discharge him. The findings supported the conclusion that he knew of the Polish proceedings and sentence, and the exercise of discretion could not be criticised.
3. Representation and fairness. The claimant had failed to provide the financial information required for legal aid, declined an opportunity to provide it or pay privately for representation, and expressly confirmed that he was ready to proceed. The absence of representation therefore did not make the hearing unfair or an abuse of process. The four-stage approach described in R (Governor of the United States of America) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2007] 1 WLR was applied.
4. Article 3. The claimant bore the burden of establishing substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose him to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. Orchowski v Poland concerned the particular conditions endured by that applicant over approximately six years and did not establish that every prisoner in Poland would face treatment contrary to Article 3. The evidence showed that overcrowding remained a problem but that the Polish authorities were addressing it, and the available information did not establish a real risk to this claimant.
5. The appeal was dismissed. Toulson LJ agreed with Griffith Williams J on all issues.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 15 January 2010, District Judge Caroline Tubbs ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.