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

A proposed extradition will be prevented on health grounds only where the person’s physical or mental condition is exceptionally serious and cannot adequately be dealt with in the receiving country, including within its prison estate. Serious injury, epilepsy, or other significant health difficulties will not automatically satisfy that high threshold. The court may consider matters not raised below where fairness requires, but the claimant must still establish an exceptional case. Questions about the execution of the sentence or payment of an underlying debt are ordinarily matters for the authorities in the requesting state.

The claimant had been sentenced in Poland to one year’s imprisonment for obtaining services by deception. A European Arrest Warrant was issued in March 2010, and the District Judge at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition. The claimant appealed in person and relied on serious injuries following a bus accident, epilepsy, and alleged physical and psychological incapacity to return to Poland. Those matters had not been raised before the District Judge. The central issue was whether the claimant’s health and related circumstances justified preventing extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had not established grounds for preventing extradition.
2. The threshold for avoiding extradition because of physical or mental condition is high and difficult to surmount. The condition must be exceptionally serious before the court can interfere with the proposed extradition.
3. Serious injuries and epilepsy, although deserving sympathy, were not exceptional features of ill-health or injury in this case. The court was not satisfied that the claimant’s physical difficulties could not be dealt with within the prison estate in Poland.
4. The court declined to determine the appeal solely on the technical basis that the health matters had not been raised before the District Judge. It considered the matters put before it, but they did not meet the applicable threshold.
5. Whether the claimant had already served part of the sentence, and whether payment of the debt underlying the conviction might affect the Polish authorities’ position, were matters for him to pursue with those authorities on return. They provided no basis for allowing the appeal.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the claimant appeared pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant and the District Judge ordered his extradition on an uncontested basis.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the claimant appealed in person. The appeal was dismissed.