Mazurkiewicz v Rzeszow Circuit Court, Poland

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition may be oppressive where the appellant proves a very high risk of suicide if extradited. The test is demanding and such cases are truly exceptional, given the safeguards available within prison systems and the principle of mutual respect between European criminal justice systems. The appellate court will not interfere with factual findings based on evidence heard by the extradition judge without a proper basis. A claim that an appellant may voluntarily submit to further tattooing in prison does not establish a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR or provide a ground to resist extradition.

The appellant appealed against an order made by a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He relied on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, arguing that his mental condition and suicide risk made extradition unjust or oppressive. He also relied on section 21 and Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR, alleging that he would be forcibly tattooed in a Polish prison.

The District Judge rejected both grounds. The appeal concerned whether the evidence established the requisite suicide risk and whether the alleged future tattooing engaged Article 3.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The order for extradition to Poland therefore stood.
2. Following Wrobel v Poland [2011] EWHC 374 (Admin), the applicable section 25 test was whether there was a very high risk that the appellant would commit suicide if extradited. Proof of certainty was unnecessary. The court nevertheless emphasised that escape from extradition on this ground would be truly exceptional. The statutory scheme rests on mutual respect between European criminal justice systems, and prison authorities generally have systems to protect vulnerable prisoners.
3. The evidence did not meet that demanding threshold. The psychiatrist’s opinion depended substantially on the appellant’s account, and the District Judge had rejected important parts of his evidence. The High Court had no proper basis to depart from factual findings made after hearing the appellant and the psychiatrist. The suicide risk was real, but it was not so high as to engage Articles 2, 3 or 8 of the ECHR or make extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25.
4. The tattooing ground also failed. The District Judge had accepted that the appellant had tattoos but rejected his account that they had been inflicted under duress. The High Court could not go behind those findings. It could not be a ground for resisting extradition that the appellant might voluntarily submit to further tattoos in prison. The second ground was therefore dismissed.
5. The court added that, because there was a real suicide risk, the UK prison authorities should exercise the utmost vigilance until extradition, prevent access to instruments of self-harm, and draw the judgment to the attention of the Polish Judicial and Prison Authorities.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge rejected the appellant’s section 25, human-rights and tattooing objections and ordered extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order stood.