Szymanski v Regional Court in Poznan Poland

In an extradition appeal, mental health problems do not create a bar to removal where the evidence does not establish that extradition would be unlawful or otherwise disproportionate. Family circumstances must be assessed under Article 8, but ordinary hardship and difficulties caused by a person’s absence will not suffice without a disproportionate interference with family life. A vague indication that the requesting state may withdraw a warrant is insufficient to justify an adjournment. The court may dismiss the appeal where the evidence provides no sustainable basis for refusing or delaying removal.

The claimant appealed against a decision of District Judge Evans dated 11 January 2013 ordering his removal to Poland to face two accusation offences and five conviction offences involving fraud, forgery and deception.

He relied principally on mental health difficulties, including a diagnosis of borderline mental handicap and an asserted need for psychiatric observation. He also relied on family circumstances under Article 8, including the position of his wife and his daughter, who was attending college in Kent. During the appeal, the claimant further relied on information suggesting that the Polish warrant might be withdrawn.

The central issues were whether the claimant’s mental state or family circumstances created a bar to removal, and whether the reported possibility of withdrawal justified an adjournment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The evidence did not establish any bar to the claimant’s removal to Poland. The recent psychiatric material was insufficient to support the conclusion that his mental state prevented extradition.
2. The claimant’s family circumstances did not make removal disproportionate under Article 8. His wife might face practical difficulties, and there could be difficulties for his daughter, but the children were able to look after themselves and the circumstances did not establish an Article 8 bar.
3. A vague indication that the claimant had received information about a possible withdrawal of the warrant did not justify an adjournment. The indication was too uncertain to provide a proper basis for delaying the appeal.
4. If, after return to Poland, the claimant persuaded the Polish court that sentences need not be served or that the accusations need not be pursued, he might be able to return to the United Kingdom if he could obtain work. That possibility did not affect the present decision.

The usual order was made.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Evans directed the claimant’s removal to Poland on 11 January 2013. The High Court dismissed the appeal: [2013] EWHC 707 (Admin).