Debiec v District Court of Piotrkow Trybunalski (Poland)

Extradition may be disproportionate under Article 8 where the requested person’s mental illness, and the likely interruption of effective treatment, create hardship well beyond that ordinarily inherent in extradition. The court must balance the individual’s private and family life against the substantial public interest in extradition, considering the circumstances on the evidence currently available. There is no requirement of exceptionality. A serious and potentially permanent deterioration in mental health may constitute a sufficient counterbalancing factor. Separately, extradition is barred by section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 where the person’s physical or mental condition makes extradition unjust or oppressive.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge Bayne’s order dated 5 July 2016 requiring his extradition to Poland under two conviction European Arrest Warrants. The principal issue was whether extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8 of the ECHR. The appellant subsequently relied on fresh psychiatric evidence concerning severe mental illness, deterioration, treatment, and suicide risk, and amended his grounds to rely on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central questions were whether the fresh evidence satisfied section 27(4), whether extradition would violate Article 8, and whether his condition made extradition unjust or oppressive.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court admitted the fresh evidence under the principles governing fresh evidence because the evidence was unavailable at the extradition hearing and arose from a subsequent deterioration in the appellant’s mental health.
2. Under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate court could allow the appeal if the new issue or evidence would have led the appropriate judge to decide a question differently and discharge the appellant.
3. The court had to conduct the Article 8 balancing exercise itself on the whole of the material then available. The exercise required separate consideration of the factors favouring and opposing extradition, followed by a reasoned conclusion. There was no test of exceptionality, although the hardship had to be well beyond the ordinary emotional and financial consequences of extradition.
4. The public interest was substantial. It included the seriousness of the drug offences, the need to honour extradition obligations, the operation of the European arrest warrant scheme, and the fact that the appellant had fled to avoid imprisonment. The appellant’s rehabilitation and blameless life in the United Kingdom were relevant factors against extradition.
5. On the updated evidence, the appellant was seriously mentally ill. Extradition would interrupt effective treatment, jeopardise recovery, and might cause marked and permanent deterioration. Those circumstances established hardship sufficient to outweigh the public interest and made extradition incompatible with Article 8.
6. The suicide risk was not treated as an independent bar. It was relevant as evidence of the severity of the illness and the need for continuing treatment. The appellant’s mental condition also made extradition unjust or oppressive within section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.
7. The extradition order was quashed in respect of both European Arrest Warrants. The judge stressed that the decision was fact-specific and set no precedent.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal allowed against the order of District Judge Bayne dated 5 July 2016. The extradition order was quashed.
• District Judge: Ordered extradition to Poland in respect of the offences remaining after discharge on certain offences for want of dual criminality under section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003.