Anusiewicz v Circuit Court In Zamosc, Poland & Anor

An appeal against extradition cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency or cogency of convictions entered by the requesting state. Any such challenge must be pursued through the requesting state’s appellate procedures. Where medical concerns are raised, the court must consider whether there is reason to believe that necessary treatment will be unavailable or inadequate in the requesting state. A general preference for domestic medical provision is insufficient. An appeal may nevertheless be dismissed subject to practical safeguards, including the transfer of relevant medical records to the requesting authorities.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Purdy’s decision of 31 October 2012 directing his return to Poland to serve outstanding custodial sentences for offences broadly described as human trafficking or immigration offences.

He challenged the evidential basis of his convictions and argued that further medical evidence was required because of lumps in his neck and elsewhere. The central issues were whether the High Court could reconsider the Polish convictions and whether the medical concerns justified allowing the appeal or an adjournment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s challenge to the cogency of the material underlying his convictions could not be entertained. The offences identified were extradition offences because, if committed in the United Kingdom, they would clearly be prosecutable here. Any alleged defect in the convictions was a matter for appeal in Poland.
2. The application for an adjournment to obtain further medical evidence was rightly unsuccessful. There was no reason to believe that the appellant would be denied treatment necessary to safeguard his health or life in Poland, including in prison conditions. The court did not need to determine whether the Polish medical system was less efficient than that of the United Kingdom.
3. The appeal was dismissed because no ground had been established for allowing it. As a practical safeguard, the court directed that the appellant’s medical records, including hospital MRI scans and prison medical notes, must be sent to Poland and made available to the Polish authorities, ideally accompanying him on removal.

• District Judge Purdy: on 31 October 2012, directed the appellant’s return to Poland to serve the outstanding sentences.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, subject to directions for the transfer of the appellant’s medical records.