Sobczak, R (on the application of) v Judicial Authority In Poland

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, fresh evidence is admissible only where it was unavailable at the extradition hearing, subject to a rare human-rights exception. The requested state may presume that a requesting state will comply with the Convention, unless strong and cogent evidence rebuts that presumption. In a conviction-warrant case, the requested state should not investigate whether the requesting state’s trial was fair or the conviction safe. Those matters fall to the requesting state’s appellate courts, subject ultimately to the Strasbourg Court. Allegations of historic ill-treatment, without evidence establishing a current and well-founded risk, do not suffice.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Purdy at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The order was based on a Polish conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning convictions for conspiracy to commit property offences and armed robbery.

The claimant sought to rely on new evidence alleging historic police and prison violence and argued that his Polish trial had been unfair. The issues were whether the evidence could be admitted under section 27(4), whether it established an Article 3 risk, and whether the requested state should examine the safety or fairness of the conviction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal had no merit. Although the notice of appeal was served on the respondent late, the court would have been prepared to extend time if the appeal had otherwise been soundly based.
2. Under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, an appeal requires a new issue or evidence, a possibility that it would have altered the extradition judge’s decision, and a consequence requiring the person’s discharge. Following Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), evidence is unavailable only if it did not exist at the hearing, was not at the party’s disposal, or could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. A human-rights exception exists, but is rare.
3. The claimant’s own evidence concerned alleged ill-treatment during the first three months of detention, followed by about two years without alleged beatings. It did not establish a well-founded fear of Article 3 ill-treatment. States operating the European Arrest Warrant system are entitled to mutual trust. Rebutting the presumption that the requesting state will comply with the Convention requires strong and cogent evidence.
4. The requested state should not investigate the fairness of a conviction warrant case. Whether a conviction is unsafe, whether evidence was improperly obtained, and whether trial procedures were breached are matters for the requesting state’s appellate and trial courts. The reasoning in Symeou [2009] EWHC 897 (Admin) supported that allocation of functions.
5. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 concerned a different extradition context and did not justify investigating the fairness of the Polish conviction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Purdy at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Appeal dismissed.