Kowalski, R (on the application of) v Lublin Provincial Court, Poland

An extradition appeal will not be adjourned merely to obtain further material on prison conditions where the Article 3 case has no merit. Matters relied on under sections 25 and 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 must be assessed on the evidence before the district judge. Where those matters have been properly considered and rejected, and no conceivable basis for intervention is shown, the High Court may dismiss the appeal and refuse further delay.

The claimant appealed against extradition to Poland to serve an eight-year sentence for offences committed there. He complained that he had not been granted an adjournment to obtain evidence about prison conditions and relied on Article 3. He also relied on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, asserting that his Roma ethnicity and medical problems increased the risks of imprisonment. The district judge had considered and rejected those matters. The Administrative Court determined whether there was any arguable basis for continuing the appeal or delaying the claimant’s return.

1. The appeal, brought under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, had no merit. The court had read the papers and concluded that there was no conceivable possibility that the appeal could succeed.
2. The complaint that an adjournment should have been granted to obtain material about prison conditions did not justify further delay. The Article 3 argument concerning prison conditions had already been raised in a number of cases and, on the material before the court, had no merit.
3. The matters relied on under section 25, including the claimant’s asserted increased risk as a Roma person and his medical problems, had been considered by the district judge. The district judge had properly rejected them.
4. The application was refused and the appeal was dismissed. Allowing the claimant to continue delaying his return would have been a complete waste of public money. The usual legal-aid costs order was made.

• District judge: considered and rejected the claimant’s arguments concerning prison conditions, Roma ethnicity and medical problems.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused the application and dismissed the appeal.