Kowalski, R (On the Application Of) v Judicial Authority Poland

In extradition proceedings between EU member states, the requested person’s guilt or innocence is for the requesting state’s criminal court, not the extradition court. Mutual confidence in the criminal justice systems of member states is central to the extradition arrangements. The necessary interruption of family life caused by extradition does not, without more, breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A medical objection requires evidence that the requested person cannot receive appropriate treatment in the requesting state. An appeal concerned with questions of law cannot succeed merely by challenging factual findings unsupported by contradictory evidence.

The claimant, a Polish national living in the United Kingdom with his wife and two children, was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant issued by a Polish regional court. He was wanted in Poland to stand trial for four alleged violent acquisitive offences committed in 2004 and 2005.

The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court rejected submissions based on delay, family life, type 1 diabetes and alleged unfairness in Poland. The claimant appealed, relying principally on sections 14 and 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether extradition would be unjust, oppressive or prejudicial, and whether it would be incompatible with his human rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant’s guilt or innocence was a matter for the Polish criminal courts. The extradition court was not required to determine the merits of the allegations.
2. The court rejected the claimant’s assertion that the Polish courts could not be trusted to conduct the proceedings fairly. The extradition arrangements between EU member states rested on confidence in each state’s criminal process and contemplated the return of persons to stand trial for alleged offences.
3. The claimant’s home and immediate family were in the United Kingdom, but extradition necessarily interrupted family life for a period. That interruption did not, on the facts, constitute a breach of Article 8 or create a bar under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
4. The District Judge had found that the claimant’s diabetes could be treated appropriately within the Polish prison system. There was no evidence contradicting that finding or showing that Poland could not provide proper treatment. The appeal was concerned with questions of law rather than the correctness of unsupported factual challenges.
5. The grounds of appeal had no substance.

1. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle rejected the claimant’s objections based on delay, family life, medical condition and alleged unfairness in Poland.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.