Raczynski v Regional Court In Kielce Poland

Extradition will not be prevented by interference with private life unless the interference reaches the substantial threshold required by Article 8. A general assertion about prison conditions cannot establish an Article 3 bar without supporting evidence. Where the relevant issues have been considered at the extradition hearing, and proposed human rights grounds are manifestly hopeless, an appellate court may refuse an adjournment sought to obtain further legal assistance. The appeal must then be dismissed.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Purdy’s order of 28 April 2011 requiring his extradition to Poland to face trial for aggravated burglary and to serve a custodial sentence for robbery. The district judge had rejected arguments based on the passage of time and found that the claimant had frustrated the judicial process.

On appeal, the claimant sought to raise Article 3 and Article 8 arguments concerning Polish prison conditions and his private life in the United Kingdom. He also sought an adjournment to obtain new legal assistance after the proposed McKenzie friend had been removed from the country.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had had several opportunities before the district judge to raise the issues he wished to pursue, including human rights arguments. The notice of appeal did not challenge the finding on passage of time.

2. The court declined to adjourn the appeal. The claimant had been warned that reliance on the proposed paid but unqualified advocate might fail and had been given time to obtain qualified legal advice. The proposed Article 3 and Article 8 arguments were manifestly hopeless, so an adjournment would serve no useful purpose.

3. As to Article 8, the claimant relied on having a partner and on the partner having a teenage daughter. Any interference with the private life established in the United Kingdom could not possibly reach the threshold required to prevent extradition, applying the approach illustrated by Norris v Government of United States of America [2010] UKSC 9.

4. As to Article 3, there was no evidence from the claimant concerning conditions in Polish prisons. The court had also dealt with that issue on numerous previous occasions and found no substance in the point.

5. The claimant remained on bail pending the arrangements for his removal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge Purdy: on 28 April 2011, ordered extradition to Poland and rejected the passage-of-time arguments.