Bliskowski v Circuit Court In Opole

Extradition to a fellow signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union, attracts a presumption that the requested state provides adequate protection against prison ill-treatment and harm from third parties. An Article 3 challenge requires substantial grounds for fearing a real risk, supported by cogent evidence capable of rebutting that presumption. Under Article 8, family life must be balanced against the strong public interest in extraditing fugitives to serve substantial sentences and in honouring extradition obligations. The appellate question is whether the lower court was wrong. Where the lower court has considered the relevant factors and reached a reasonable conclusion, the appeal will be dismissed.

The appellant appealed against the Chief Magistrate’s decision of 11 September 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a conviction warrant for drug offences committed between 2002 and 2004. He was required to serve a two-year sentence and had failed to report to prison before coming to the United Kingdom.

Before the Chief Magistrate, he argued that the extradition request was an abuse of process because an earlier warrant had been withdrawn and amended, that reference to a later Polish sentencing statute breached Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his family life under Article 8. In the High Court he additionally suggested that former criminal associates might threaten him in prison, raising Article 3. The central issues were whether the lower court had erred in rejecting those objections and whether extradition was disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The relevant appellate question was whether the Chief Magistrate was wrong. The Chief Magistrate had considered the relevant matters and reached a decision that was reasonably open to him. Indeed, it was the only reasonable decision available on the facts.
2. Article 3 imposed a high threshold. Extradition could be prevented only where there were substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where extradition was sought by a fellow signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was also a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union, there was a presumption that adequate protection existed both within the prison system and against attacks by third parties. That presumption could be rebutted only by cogent evidence that the particular state did not, or could not, provide sufficient protection from the particular harm alleged. The appellant’s assertion, without supporting evidence, was manifestly insufficient.
3. The Article 8 family-life claim was outweighed cumulatively by the public interest in extradition. Relevant factors included the appellant’s fugitive status and his awareness of it when establishing family life in the United Kingdom, the non-trivial nature of the offence, the substantial sentence remaining to be served, the absence of children whose welfare required consideration, the fact that the period since 2007 was not unusually lengthy in this context, and the United Kingdom’s weighty interest in honouring its extradition obligations.
4. The appellant’s preference to serve his sentence in the United Kingdom did not provide a legal basis for allowing the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Chief Magistrate’s decision of 11 September 2014 was dismissed.
• Chief Magistrate: Extradition to Poland was ordered on a conviction warrant for drug offences.