Madejski v Judicial Authority In Poland

[2012] EWHC 159 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 159 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
31 January 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative law Extradition Human rights
Keywords
European arrest warrant extradition appeal Article 8 Article 6 Article 3 passage of time prison conditions failure to raise evidence below
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An extradition appeal cannot ordinarily succeed on grounds or evidence that could have been raised before the magistrates’ court. Bare assertions of incompatibility with Convention rights, delay, or prison conditions do not establish an extradition bar. Where the appellant has withdrawn instructions, the court may dismiss the appeal where no arguable ground for allowing it exists.

Factual background

A European arrest warrant sought the appellant’s extradition to Poland to face prosecution for armed robbery. The District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition after an uncontested hearing. The appellant lodged an appeal alleging errors concerning Article 8, delay, Article 6 and Article 3 prison conditions.

The appellant ceased giving instructions to his solicitors and no longer wished to pursue the appeal. The central issue was whether any arguable ground remained on which the extradition order could be challenged.

Held

  1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s withdrawal of instructions did not itself determine the appeal. The court considered whether the grounds identified in the notice of appeal could justify allowing it.
  2. The issues relied upon could have been raised before District Judge Tubbs, with the supporting evidence deployed at that stage. Applying the approach explained in Fenyvesi, the fact that relevant evidence was available to the appellant was material to the appeal.
  3. In any event, the bare assertions in the notice of appeal did not begin to establish any of the asserted bars. The allegations concerning Article 8, passage of time, Article 6 and Article 3 prison conditions therefore disclosed no arguable basis for interfering with the extradition decision.
  4. The appeal was dismissed for both reasons: the failure to raise the matters and evidence before the District Judge, and the absence of evidence capable of establishing an extradition bar.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court was dismissed.
  • Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered extradition after an uncontested hearing on 25 November 2011.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.