Nogalski v Judicial Authority of Poland

An adjournment in an extradition appeal should be refused where the proposed further evidence would add no material value and there is no real prospect that it would establish a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR. A challenge based on prison conditions should ordinarily be raised before the district judge and supported by current, substantive evidence. General or outdated material, substantially similar to evidence already considered by the court, is insufficient.

The claimant appealed against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence for assaulting a police officer and assault with intent to resist arrest. The extradition hearing had been uncontested, and no issue concerning prison conditions had been raised before the district judge.

On appeal, the claimant sought an adjournment to obtain further evidence concerning alleged systemic overcrowding and ill-treatment in Polish prisons. The central issue was whether there was sufficient material to justify delaying the appeal to investigate a possible breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

1. Application for an adjournment. The application was refused. The material supplied concerning Polish prison conditions was largely outdated, general and no different from material previously considered by the Administrative Court. There was nothing startling on the horizon capable of creating a real prospect of an Article 3 breach.
2. Procedural responsibility and evidence. If prison conditions were to be relied upon, the issue should have been raised before the district judge in the first place. An appeal could not properly be adjourned merely to enable the claimant to develop an evidential case that should have been advanced earlier.
3. Article 3 assessment. The court had considered Polish prison conditions on several occasions after Orchowski, including in Pisarek v Regional Court in Elblag 11, Targosinski, R (on the application of) v Judicial Authority of Poland and Slowinski v Polish Judicial Authority. Those decisions had found no breach of Article 3 on the material before the court. The present material did not disclose a sufficient basis for a different conclusion.
4. The appeal was dismissed, substantially for the reasons given in refusing the adjournment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant appealed against the district judge’s extradition order. The application for an adjournment was refused and the appeal was dismissed.