Wrobel v Poland

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition may be oppressive where the evidence establishes a very high risk that the requested person will successfully commit suicide after return, despite available protective measures. The test does not require psychiatric evidence expressed as a certainty that suicide will occur. The court must make an overall judgment on the facts. Relevant considerations include the public interest in fulfilling extradition treaties, the assumed adequacy of the requesting state’s facilities, and the high threshold for oppression. Independent and convincing evidence of a very high risk is required.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland and remained liable to serve two years and two months’ imprisonment. Poland sought his extradition under a European arrest warrant. The District Judge accepted psychiatric evidence but concluded that return would not be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.

On appeal, the issue was whether the evidence established that extradition would be unjust or oppressive because of the risk of suicide. The central question was whether section 25 required proof that the appellant would certainly kill himself if returned, or whether a sufficiently high evidential risk of successful suicide was sufficient.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge ought to have upheld the section 25 objection. Extradition was oppressive and the extradition order was quashed.
2. The court accepted the general approach in Howes v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2009] SCL 341: the issue requires an overall judgment on the facts, previous cases are illustrative rather than definitive, and a high threshold applies.
3. Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin) provided an important benchmark, but its ratio was not that the requested person must be shown certain to commit suicide. The correct test was whether the risk that the person would succeed in committing suicide, whatever protective steps were taken, was sufficiently great to amount to oppression.
4. The court rejected the suggestion in Rot v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin) that evidence that the requested person would kill himself if extradited was necessary. Psychiatric predictions cannot sensibly be expressed in terms of certainty. The court nevertheless agreed with much of the reasoning in Rot.
5. The approach was consistent with R (on the application of Prosser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 84 (Admin), where the court recognised that a very high suicide risk could satisfy the Article 3 threshold. Section 25 should not be interpreted as imposing a more stringent test.
6. The evidence had to be independent and convincing. The requesting state’s ability to treat mental illness was assumed in a Part 1 European arrest warrant case, and comparative quality of treatment in London was immaterial. Professor Hirsch’s unchallenged evidence established the required very high risk.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal from the District Judge and quashed the extradition order.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Nicholas Evans ordered extradition, holding that return would not be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.