Rozanski, R (on the application of) v Regional Court 3 Penal Department Poland

In an extradition appeal, prison-condition objections under Article 3 require evidence capable of changing the factual basis on which comparable challenges have failed. A bare assertion about conditions in Poland is insufficient. Article 8 may prevent extradition, but the public interest in extradition weighs very heavily. Family, employment and short remaining custody will generally not meet the threshold unless there is an exceptionally compelling feature or combination of features making extradition disproportionate.

A District Judge ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant to serve the balance of a sentence for theft and burglary. The claimant had not relied on Article 3 or Article 8 before the District Judge, but no objection was taken to their being raised on appeal. After the Supreme Court resolved a notice-of-appeal issue in the claimant’s favour, the appeal was remitted to the Administrative Court. The claimant did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether Polish prison conditions engaged Article 3 and whether the effect of extradition on his family life, employment and remaining sentence made it disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Article 3. The claimant provided no evidence about Polish prison conditions. In light of Krolik and others v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 Admin, a prison-conditions argument based on new evidence must address the steps identified by the court, including evidence changing the factual basis of earlier unsuccessful appeals. Nothing of that kind had been provided, so the Article 3 ground had no merit.
2. Article 8. The court accepted that Article 8 can prevent extradition. However, applying Norris v The Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9, the public interest in extradition weighed very heavily. Interference with family life would be disproportionate only where an exceptionally compelling feature, or combination of features, was present. The claimant’s brief account of family responsibilities, possible loss of employment and the short period left to serve came nowhere near that threshold.
3. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed.

• Supreme Court: The notice-of-appeal issue was decided in the claimant’s favour and the appeal was remitted to the Administrative Court: [2012] UKSC 20.
• Administrative Court: The extradition appeal was dismissed.