Laszczkowski, R (on the application of) v Krakow District Court, Poland

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition may be oppressive where the person’s physical or mental condition creates a substantial or very high risk of suicide. The risk must be assessed on the evidence, including its magnitude, predictability and the protective measures available in the receiving state. An uncertain and unquantifiable risk, without current depressive or psychotic illness and in circumstances where effective care has previously been provided, may be insufficient. The court must also balance the risk against the seriousness of the offences, the extradition obligation and relevant family and human-rights considerations.

The claimant appealed against an order made by District Judge Purdy on 24 January 2011 requiring his extradition to Poland under a Part 1 European arrest warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve a sentence totalling three years and nine months for offences including drug possession, assaults and threats to kill.

He relied on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, asserting that his mental condition and history of self-harm made extradition unjust or oppressive. He also relied on articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, principally because separation from his young son might cause him to attempt suicide. The central issue was whether the evidence established a sufficiently serious risk to make extradition oppressive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The evidence did not establish that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The court accepted the approach in Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin). In a suicide case, the question is whether the risk that the person will attempt or succeed in committing suicide is substantial or very high, and sufficiently great to justify a finding of oppression. The court adopted the practical approach in Marius Wrobel v Poland [2011] EWHC 374 (Admin), recognising that psychiatric evidence ordinarily expresses a very high risk rather than certainty.
3. The claimant’s risk was uncertain and unquantifiable. He was not suffering from depression or psychosis, had no current thoughts or plans of suicide, and his previous self-harm had been impulsive rather than planned. He had not self-harmed after the breakdown of his relationship, despite that stressful event. The evidence could not predict either the nature or severity of any future self-harm.
4. The evidence also showed that the claimant had previously received prompt medical care and therapeutic support in Poland. The court therefore found that the unpredictability of his personality did not establish oppression.
5. Articles 3 and 8 did not produce a different result. The case was not based on alleged inhuman treatment in Poland. The article 8 balance required consideration of the claimant’s relationship with his son, the seriousness of the offences and the international obligation to extradite. The evidential uncertainty concerning future contact between father and son meant that those possibilities could not be relied upon in the proportionality assessment.
6. The court declined to impose the more stringent certainty-based approach discussed in Rot v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin). The appropriate inquiry remained whether the evidence established a sufficiently great risk to make extradition oppressive.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 24 January 2011. The appeal was dismissed by Lord Justice Pitchford, with Mr Justice Supperstone agreeing.