Gogolinski v Regional Court In Lodz Poland

In an extradition appeal, mere denial of guilt does not provide a ground for resisting extradition. An Article 3 objection based on general and unsupported assertions about prison overcrowding is insufficient. Article 8 family circumstances will justify refusal only in an exceptional case, assessed on the evidence. Allegations about the reliability of prosecution evidence or the conduct of a foreign criminal trial are ordinarily matters for the requesting state’s courts where its law guarantees a fair trial. An Article 6 bar requires compelling evidence that extradition would expose the individual to a flagrantly unfair trial and thereby place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Coleman on 29 February 2012 directing his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He was wanted for trial on drug-trafficking allegations concerning conduct between October 2003 and 5 May 2004.

Initially, he relied on innocence and later advanced unsupported objections based on Polish prison conditions, family life, and the fairness of the proposed trial. Shortly before the hearing, solicitors sought an adjournment to obtain an expert report. The central issues were whether the appeal disclosed an arguable ground and whether an adjournment was justified.

1. Disposition. The appeal had no prospect of success on the material before the court. The application for an adjournment was refused and the appeal was dismissed.
2. Innocence. It is not a bar to extradition that the requested person denies committing the offence with which he is charged. The merits and reliability of the prosecution evidence are ordinarily matters for the trial court in the requesting state.
3. Articles 3 and 8. A commonplace, wholly unsupported assertion that Polish prisons were overcrowded could not establish an Article 3 bar. The appellant’s family circumstances disclosed no exceptional feature requiring protection under Article 8, even though extradition would temporarily separate him from his family in the United Kingdom.
4. Fair trial objections. In extradition proceedings the court generally looks to the law of the requesting country. Where that law guarantees a fair trial, allegations concerning doubtful evidence or criminal trial practice should be addressed by the requesting state’s courts. There was no evidential basis for anticipating a flagrantly unfair trial in Poland, such as would place the United Kingdom in breach of Article 6.
5. Adjournment. Although an adjournment could have been granted if the appeal had arguable merit, the proposed further material could not realistically alter the conclusion. The procedural failures of the solicitors did not justify delaying determination of a hopeless appeal.

• District Judge Coleman: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 29 February 2012.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused an adjournment and dismissed the appeal on 2 May 2012.