Drew v Regional Court Kielce Poland

In extradition proceedings to a Convention state, the presumption of compliance with Convention obligations may be displaced by clear and cogent evidence. In an Article 6 case, the evidence must establish substantial grounds for believing that extradition creates a real risk of a flagrant denial of a fair trial. The requested court does not ordinarily review the correctness or safety of the foreign conviction. It asks whether the alleged matters could, if proved, meet that stringent threshold. A district judge may therefore make a preliminary assessment of proposed evidence and refuse a credibility hearing unless the evidence is capable of establishing a flagrant denial of justice.

The appellant appealed against an order made by the Senior District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 27 February 2012, requiring his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve a one-year sentence imposed after his conviction for cruelty to horses.

He argued that evidence concerning alleged defects in the Polish investigation and trial should have been admitted and that extradition would breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issues were the admissibility of that evidence and whether it could establish a flagrant denial of justice.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Senior District Judge was entitled to refuse the proposed evidence and to order extradition.
2. For a Category 1 requesting state, the starting point was the presumption that it could and would fulfil its Convention obligations. Clear and cogent evidence could rebut that presumption.
3. Under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, an Article 6 challenge required substantial grounds for believing that extradition created a real risk of a flagrant denial of a fair trial. That threshold went beyond ordinary procedural irregularities and required a fundamental destruction or nullification of the essence of the fair-trial right.
4. The requested court was not required to determine whether the foreign conviction was correct or safe. It had to consider whether the allegations, even if accepted, could establish a systemic or general denial of justice capable of affecting the appellant.
5. A first-instance court could make a concise preliminary assessment of proposed evidence. It need not examine every document in detail or hear witnesses on credibility unless the evidence was first shown to be capable of establishing a flagrant denial of justice.

The appellant’s legal aid costs were subject to detailed assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the order of Senior District Judge Riddle at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 27 February 2012. The appeal was dismissed.