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

In an extradition case involving a Category 1 Convention state, the court starts from mutual trust and a presumption that the requesting state will comply with its Convention obligations. That presumption is capable of rebuttal. A defendant must produce clear and cogent evidence that extradition would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3. A general account of allegedly systemic prison conditions, unsupported by satisfactory current evidence or evidence of a particular risk to the defendant, will ordinarily be insufficient.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Evans at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Three Polish conviction warrants concerned robbery, assault, drug possession and attempted burglary.

The claimant relied on Article 3 of the Convention, alleging overcrowding, inadequate toilet paper and razors, lack of prisoner segregation, and deliberate provocation by prison officers. The central issue was whether that general evidence displaced the presumption that Poland would comply with its Convention obligations.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order was upheld.
2. The European Arrest Warrant scheme rests on mutual trust between Convention states. The starting point is therefore a presumption that the requesting state is able and willing to fulfil its Convention obligations. The court adopted the reasoning in KRS v United Kingdom and agreed that it applied with at least equal force in extradition proceedings.
3. The presumption is not irrebuttable. The approach in R (Jan Rot) v District Court of Lublin Poland, if read as permitting rebuttal only where the constitutional order of the requesting state had been overthrown, stated the matter too high. A defendant may rely on other cogent circumstances, including a Strasbourg judgment establishing systemic Convention violations in the requesting state.
4. Orchowski v Poland established systemic violations in Polish prisons up to May 2008, but also recorded subsequent improvements. The claimant produced no clear or satisfactory evidence that the criticised conditions continued, or that his extradition would expose him to a Convention breach.
5. Applying the approach reflected in Ullah, clear and cogent evidence was required to displace the presumption. The claimant’s general, second-hand allegations fell far short of that standard.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Evans’s extradition order was dismissed.