Kondrak v District Court In Kielce Poland

Extradition need not ordinarily be deferred merely because the requested person has pending judicial review or damages proceedings in the United Kingdom. The question is whether extradition would cause a real disability in presenting that claim. Where the claim can be advanced through documentary evidence and communication with representatives can reasonably be facilitated by the requesting state, deferral is not required. A requesting state’s status as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights is relevant, since any real risk of an Article 6 violation arising after extradition may be addressed there.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Coleman’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling four years and five months. He had a pending judicial review claim concerning alleged unlawful detention by the Home Office and intended to pursue damages if that claim succeeded.

He argued that his presence in the United Kingdom was necessary to pursue the claim properly and that extradition before its determination would breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether extradition should be deferred until the domestic proceedings were concluded.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The pending judicial review and potential damages claim did not justify deferring extradition.
2. The lawfulness of the appellant’s detention would be determined principally by documentary material, including the Home Office file. His presence was therefore unnecessary for that issue. Any failure to provide disclosure could be addressed by an application for an order in the judicial review proceedings.
3. The appellant’s potential claim for damages did not establish that extradition would cause a disabling disadvantage. Evidence concerning his work and alleged exercise of treaty rights could be identified and verified through his representatives. The court did not determine the merits of those issues.
4. The absence of confirmed arrangements for communication with representatives in the United Kingdom was not sufficient to require deferral. The Polish authorities should be asked, as a matter of comity, to take reasonable steps to permit communication so that the domestic claim could be pursued without infringing Article 6.
5. Poland was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. If a real risk of an Article 6 breach arose through actions or inactions in Poland, the appellant would have a remedy there. The necessary arrangements could be considered once the judicial review outcome was known.

Extradition was therefore not deferred.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order.
• District Judge Coleman: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling four years and five months.