Wozniak, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court in Lublin

In an extradition appeal based on Article 3, generally unsatisfactory prison conditions in the requested state do not establish a breach where conditions have materially improved and domestic courts have found that they do not, in general, reach the Article 3 threshold. The appellant must identify very special individual circumstances creating a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Personal medical problems, a past prison injury, and concern about hostility from prison officers will not suffice without evidence that the individual is likely to suffer prohibited treatment.

The claimant appealed under Extradition Act 2003, section 26, against an order made by District Judge Purdy on 8 June 2012. The order required his extradition to Poland to serve one year, four months and twenty-five days remaining from a four-year sentence for manslaughter imposed in 2000.

He relied principally on Article 3, alleging that prison conditions in Poland would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment. He relied on his loss of sight in one eye, mental health problems, his previous treatment in a Polish prison, and the fact that the victim had been a retired prison officer. The central issue was whether those matters established a sufficiently particularised individual risk despite the general improvement in Polish prison conditions.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant was required to serve the balance of the sentence and there was no good reason to permit him to remain in the United Kingdom.
2. Polish prison conditions had previously been unsatisfactory, and the issue had arisen regularly in extradition appeals. However, conditions had improved. Following Hartung v Circuit Court in Szczecin [2012] EWHC 1884 Admin, general conditions in Poland were not such as to contravene Article 3.
3. An Article 3 objection could succeed only where very special matters adversely affecting the individual were shown. The relevant question was whether the claimant himself was likely to suffer treatment contrary to Article 3.
4. The claimant’s one-eye condition, medical and mental health problems, past experiences in prison, and alleged unpopularity because the victim was a retired prison officer did not demonstrate such a risk. The district judge had correctly rejected those matters, together with the family issue raised before him.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
2. District Judge Purdy: on 8 June 2012, ordered extradition to Poland to serve the balance of the sentence.