Biadon v The Circuit Court In Olsztyn Poland

On an extradition appeal, a ground not raised before the District Judge should not ordinarily be advanced where the appellant was represented by experienced extradition solicitors and offers no explanation for the omission. Evidence of a settled and law-abiding life in the United Kingdom does not, without more, establish that extradition would breach Article 8 or be oppressive. A pending application before the requesting state’s court to defer execution of a sentence is ordinarily a matter for that court and does not itself bar extradition, save in highly unusual circumstances.

A European Arrest Warrant was issued by the Circuit Court in Olsztyn for the appellant’s extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence imposed for importing ecstasy and burglary. A District Judge ordered extradition on 5 October 2012. The appellant appealed under sections 26 and 25 of the 2003 Act, relying on his physical condition and asserting difficulty obtaining surgery in Poland. He also relied on a Polish court summons concerning an application to defer execution of the sentence. The central issues were whether the late ground could be entertained and whether the material established a bar to extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s challenge to extradition disclosed no proper basis for disturbing the District Judge’s order.
2. Applying Szombathely City Court & Ors v Fenyvesi & Anor [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), the court refused to permit reliance on material that could and should have been deployed before the District Judge. The appellant had been represented at that hearing by experienced extradition solicitors, and there was no explanation for failing to raise the proposed ground.
3. Even if the late material were admitted, it did not come close to establishing that extradition would infringe the appellant’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The medical certificate identified a false joint in the right scaphoid bone requiring surgery, but there was no evidence beyond the appellant’s assertion that treatment would be unavailable or inaccessible in Poland.
4. The appellant’s commendable law-abiding life, established roots and long-term relationship in the United Kingdom did not prevent extradition to serve the unexpired sentence for serious offences.
5. The summons concerning a Polish application to defer execution of the sentence was a matter for the Polish courts. It was not capable of constituting a bar to extradition or, save in highly unusual circumstances, creating oppression or another independent bar.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order of 5 October 2012 was dismissed.