Bartosiewicz, R (on the application of) v District Court Warszawa Praga Warsaw

On an appeal against an extradition order, Convention States are presumed able and willing to fulfil their obligations. An appellant alleging that extradition would breach Article 3 must provide compelling evidence showing a real and particularised risk of treatment contrary to that provision. The burden is heavy. Article 8 rights are engaged whenever extradition results in imprisonment, but personal, family and employment circumstances will not make extradition unlawful unless they establish an Article 8 bar. The appellate court’s powers are limited by the European Arrest Warrant scheme, which requires execution of a warrant unless a recognised ground for refusal is established.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Riddle at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 September 2010. The order was based on a European Arrest Warrant issued on 5 March 2009 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 15 August 2010.

The warrant sought the claimant’s return to Poland for prosecution for theft from a motorcar and obtaining property by fraud, and to serve the unexpired portion of a 12-month sentence for stealing a mobile phone. He argued that return would expose him to torture because he had formerly been a police informant, contrary to Article 3. He also relied on the short remaining sentence, his work and tax payments in England, and his family relationship with an English girlfriend and young child. The central issues were whether extradition would breach Articles 3 or 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court’s powers on an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 were limited. The European Arrest Warrant system requires the courts of one country to execute warrants issued by another unless a particular ground for refusal is established.
2. For Article 3 purposes, the court began with a presumption that the authorities of another Convention State would fulfil their Convention responsibilities. The appellant therefore bore a heavy burden of showing that his particular return would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3. His evidence fell well short of that threshold. The availability in Poland of isolation arrangements for vulnerable prisoners also supported the conclusion that the alleged risk had not been established.
3. Article 8 rights were engaged because extradition would involve imprisonment and would affect private and family life. However, nothing in the claimant’s personal circumstances made his return unlawful under Article 8. The short unexpired sentence, employment and tax history, relationship and child did not provide a recognised basis for refusing extradition.
4. The district judge had made the decision required by law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle made an extradition order on 30 September 2010.