Dobrowolska v Regional Court Warsaw Poland

Where extradition is opposed on the ground that non-state agents pose a risk to life or of inhuman or degrading treatment, the court may consider whether the requesting state’s authorities can provide effective protection. Absent evidence to the contrary, the court may proceed on the basis that the police will take appropriate protective steps when informed of the danger. In those circumstances, extradition will not breach Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made following European Arrest Warrants issued by courts in Poland. She sought to rely on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging that information she had given to the Polish police had exposed her and her family to threats and assaults by non-state agents. Those grounds had not been advanced before the district judge, but the court considered them in the interests of fairness. The issue was whether return to Poland would expose her to a real risk against which the Polish authorities could not protect her.

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The appellant’s alleged danger arose from non-state agents who had learned that she had provided information to the Polish police about significant criminals and their activities. Such a situation could arise in any country.
3. There was a heavy duty on the police to ensure the safety of a person who had provided information. The court had no evidence or reason to suppose that the Polish police would fail to take appropriate protective steps if informed of the threats.
4. Balancing the appellant’s rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court concluded that extradition would not breach either provision, provided the Polish police were informed of the situation.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 19 July 2012, the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge: The extradition hearing took place before Rose DJ on 16 January 2012. The judgment does not state the citation of that decision.