Laskowski v District Court of Legnica Poland

In extradition proceedings, expiry of the limitation period for an offence may prevent extradition where the warrant and further information establish that no penalty can lawfully be imposed. The conclusion is fact-specific and does not create a general rule that every statement in a European Arrest Warrant is conclusive. A medical condition makes extradition oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 only where the evidence establishes a sufficiently serious risk, having regard to the treatment available in the requesting state. Practical arrangements, including postponement of removal by agreement, may address a short-term medical need without making extradition oppressive.

The appellant appealed against the District Judge’s decision of 14 December 2010 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve sentences for attempted theft from a car and robbery, together with a further drink-driving matter for which the penalty had not yet been imposed. He had suffered a heart attack and sought an adjournment to complete medical treatment. The adjournment was refused, and no substantive challenge was made to the European Arrest Warrant at that stage.

Before the Administrative Court, the appellant relied on the limitation period applicable to the drink-driving offence and on the alleged oppressive effect of extradition given his medical treatment. The central issues were whether extradition remained lawful for the drink-driving offence and whether his health made extradition oppressive.

1. Drink-driving offence. The warrant stated that the applicable 10-year limitation period expired on 11 February 2011. Further information supplied by the Polish prosecuting authority gave a different date, but one also before the hearing. On the material before the court, no penalty could lawfully be imposed. Extradition for that offence was therefore impermissible.
2. Medical condition. The appellant’s heart condition and medication did not make extradition oppressive within section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. The evidence did not establish a sufficiently serious condition for that conclusion. The required drugs were considered available in Poland, and the Polish authorities would provide necessary treatment in custody. The court referred to R (On the application of Mikolajczyk) v Wroclaw District Court (C0/9561/2010), where assurances had been obtained that necessary medical assistance would be provided.
3. The court considered it sensible for the appellant and the CPS to arrange either for him to travel with his medication and an updated medical report or for removal to be postponed until the end of May 2011. The court indicated that it would extend time for removal if the Polish authorities agreed. This practical accommodation did not alter the conclusion that extradition was not oppressive.
4. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the attempted theft and robbery offences. It was allowed to the limited extent necessary to exclude the drink-driving offence. Bail was extended on the existing terms until removal was required, with liberty to apply if arrangements materially failed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal from the District Judge’s decision of 14 December 2010 was dismissed concerning the attempted theft and robbery offences, but allowed so that extradition did not extend to the drink-driving offence.