Ciesielski v District Court In Czestochowa, Poland

In extradition proceedings, a claimed suicide risk does not by itself make extradition oppressive. The court must assess whether the risk is substantial, whether it arises from the person’s mental disorder, and whether appropriate facilities are available in the requesting state. European Union states are presumed to have suitable facilities unless evidence raises a real question about that assumption. A late psychiatric report may be admitted where the risk of suicide makes exclusion inappropriate, but this does not relax the usual approach to late evidence. The absence of evidence undermining the presumption of adequate facilities means that further enquiries are unnecessary.

The appellant was wanted by Poland to serve a three-year custodial sentence following conviction for drug-supply offences. The Senior District Judge ordered extradition and rejected an argument under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 that extradition would be oppressive.

On appeal, the appellant relied on a late psychiatric report diagnosing chronic paranoid schizophrenia and recording a claimed intention to commit suicide if returned to Poland. The issues were whether the report should be admitted, whether it established the necessary risk, and whether further enquiries into Polish prison facilities were required.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision to refuse an adjournment was discretionary, and the court would have been reluctant to interfere with it. The later psychiatric report was admitted pragmatically because a report identifying a potential suicide risk could not readily be ignored. The court stressed that this was not encouragement for late reports and that the usual approach in Fenyvesi remained important.
2. Taking the report at its highest, it established a significant risk that the appellant might attempt suicide. However, the risk was described as within his control rather than driven by schizophrenia. His schizophrenia was being controlled by medication, which he was expected to continue taking. The report therefore did not establish the necessary basis for preventing extradition.
3. There is a presumption that European Union countries possess appropriate facilities for managing persons presenting a suicide risk. No evidence raised any question about the adequacy of facilities in Poland. Further enquiries were therefore unnecessary. The general considerations concerning suicide risk in extradition cases were noted by reference to Poland v Wolkowicz & others.
4. A copy of the psychiatric report was to be sent to the respondent judicial authority and to the governor of the appellant’s prison.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal from the Senior District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Riddle ordered extradition on 11 December 2012, holding that section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 did not bar extradition.