Kozikowski v District Court 11 Penal Section Suwalki Poland

An appellant should ordinarily raise extradition objections at the first hearing rather than for the first time on appeal. Where the court nevertheless considers the merits, a claimed risk from private individuals will rarely establish an Article 3 breach if adequate state protection is available. A claim that extradition would be unjust or oppressive because of stress, depression or paranoia requires objective evidence, including evidence capable of demonstrating the alleged condition and its relevant effect. Bare assertions without medical or other objective support are insufficient.

The appellant had agreed to extradition at the original hearing. A European Arrest Warrant sought his return to Poland to serve the remainder of a three-year sentence for robbery and attempted theft.

On appeal, he sought to raise two new issues: an alleged risk to his life from private money lenders, said to engage Article 3, and alleged stress, depression and paranoia, said to make extradition unjust and oppressive under section 25. The central questions were whether these matters could properly be raised for the first time on appeal and, if considered, whether they disclosed arguable grounds for refusing extradition.

1. New grounds on appeal. The appellant had failed to raise either issue at the extradition hearing. His explanation for that failure was rejected. The court observed that an appeal was not the appropriate forum for matters which should have been advanced before the first-instance court.
2. Article 3. The alleged threat came from non-state actors. The threshold for resisting extradition on that basis was very high. The court had no reason to believe that, if the threats were reported, the Polish authorities would fail to provide adequate security and protection. The alleged risk therefore did not provide an arguable basis for refusing return.
3. Section 25. The appellant asserted that he suffered from stress and paranoia, but had neither sought nor received medical treatment. There was no objective evidence establishing those conditions, still less showing that return would be unjust or oppressive.
4. The appeal failed. The grounds were unarguable.

The appellant had agreed to extradition at the original extradition hearing. The High Court (Administrative Court) considered his appeal against return to Poland and dismissed it.