Smuda v District Court of Poznan Poland

An appeal against an extradition decision must be brought within the strict seven-day period prescribed by the Extradition Act. The court has no power to extend time, including where delay results from legal representatives’ error. Even if the appeal were considered on its merits, an allegation of danger in a foreign prison requires evidence of a specific and individual risk of ill-treatment, together with evidence that the foreign authorities cannot prevent it. General concerns about prison safety are insufficient. Article 8 family-life concerns and personal medical circumstances must be exceptional before they can prevent extradition.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland of serious offences and had served only part of his sentence. A European Arrest Warrant was issued, and he was arrested in England. The Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition. His appeal was lodged outside the required seven-day period. He argued that the delay resulted from his lawyers’ failure and raised concerns about his safety in Polish prison, his family life and his medical condition. The central issues were whether time could be extended and, if so, whether those matters justified refusing extradition.

1. Time limit. The appeal was out of time. The statutory extradition scheme imposes a strict seven-day limit, and the court has no discretion to extend it retrospectively. That remained so even if the default resulted from the appellant’s lawyers.
2. Alleged prison danger. The judge nevertheless considered the appellant’s principal substantive concern. Applying Bagdanavicius & Anor, R (on the application of) v [2005] UKHL 38, a risk said to arise from another prisoner must be specific to the individual, sufficiently serious, and supported by evidence that the authorities cannot prevent the threatened ill-treatment. General assertions that Polish prisons were unsafe did not satisfy that standard.
3. Article 8 and health. The appellant’s son’s ill health, his family-life concerns and his own medical condition did not approach the extreme circumstances required to prevent extradition. The extradition system rests on mutual trust between states, and extradition ordinarily follows absent clear and substantial problems.
4. The appeal failed. The appellant was to be extradited.

1. Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wickham ordered the appellant’s extradition.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed as out of time. The court also held that the substantive concerns would not have justified a different outcome.