Malinowski v Judge Maria Derela Court In Kielce Poland

Where an extradition case is otherwise ready for return but fresh medical evidence indicates a possible urgent need for specialist examination, the court may dismiss the appeal while postponing the effect of the dismissal. The extradition process should not be finally set in motion until the relevant medical position is established. Any necessary treatment available in the requesting state does not, by itself, prevent return.

The claimant appealed against his return to Poland to serve sentences totalling approximately two and a half years for theft and manslaughter. No issue prevented return apart from medical problems following an unsuccessful operation affecting his ability to urinate and causing pain. An urgent urological examination had been indicated, but had not yet taken place. The court considered whether the appeal should be dismissed immediately or whether the medical position should first be clarified.

1. The appeal was dismissed because the claimant accepted that he would ultimately have to be returned and there was no established reason, apart from the unresolved medical issue, preventing return.
2. The effect of the dismissal was postponed. It would have been wrong to set the extradition process finally in motion while there was an indication of an urgent need for specialist referral and the claimant’s fitness to return remained uncertain.
3. The claimant’s medical condition had to be clarified by written information explaining the need for referral, followed by a report after the urological examination. The reports were to be served on the respondent, with written representations permitted.
4. If the parties could not agree the date on which the dismissal should take effect, the court might list a further hearing or determine the date on the papers. The matter was to be dealt with as soon as reasonably practicable.
5. If treatment were required, there was no reason to doubt that it could be provided in Poland.

The judgment records an appeal concerning the claimant’s extradition to Poland, but does not identify the decision or citation of the lower court. The appeal was dismissed, subject to the postponement and directions set out in this judgment.