Magiera v District Court of Krakow, Poland

Extradition may be barred where a requested person’s physical condition creates a real risk of particular, distinct and severe hardship in detention. The court must examine the condition’s practical effect on daily life, then assess whether specific arrangements in the requesting state will meet the resulting needs.

For a complex condition, general assurances about prison healthcare may be insufficient. Although an EU member state is presumed to provide ordinary prison medical facilities, detailed medical evidence may require a response addressing the individual’s concrete needs. A failure to show that those needs can be met hygienically and with dignity may make extradition oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and disproportionate under Article 8.

The appellant appealed against an order of Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 8 November 2016 for his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of sentences for three offences involving false employment documents used to obtain loans.

He had undergone surgery for colorectal cancer and had a stoma, hernia, arthritis, varicose veins and lung disease. Before the district judge he relied on Article 8 and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. On appeal he also advanced Article 3 and relied on substantial fresh medical and prison-healthcare evidence.

The central issue was whether the appellant’s medical needs could be met in Polish detention so that extradition would remain proportionate and not unjust or oppressive.

Disposition

Appeal allowed. Julian Knowles J quashed the extradition order. The fresh evidence showed a real risk that the appellant could not manage his stoma in detention hygienically, safely or with the privacy required to preserve his dignity.

1. Where medical condition is relied on under Article 8 or section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must examine its practical effect on the requested person’s daily life. It must then assess whether the requesting state can meet the resulting hardship through medical care or other concrete arrangements. The ultimate statutory and proportionality assessments follow only after those matters have been addressed.

2. The presumption that an EU member state provides ordinary prison medical facilities is rebuttable. A general response may suffice for a common and readily managed condition. A complex condition may require individualised information showing how the specific needs will be accommodated. Medical records should ordinarily be supplied so that the requesting state can give an informed response.

3. The Polish response did not address the appellant’s need for continuous access to stoma equipment, scissors, sanitation, water, toilet facilities and privacy. It did not explain his likely cell conditions, access to facilities, or alternative arrangements because scissors could not be kept in a cell. General statements about healthcare and prison facilities therefore did not answer the detailed medical concerns.

4. The resulting risk of the appellant being unable to care for himself hygienically and with dignity was a particular and severe hardship. It was oppressive within section 25 and, exceptionally, made extradition a disproportionate interference with Article 8. Applying the fresh-evidence appeal approach explained in Olga C v. The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 2211 (Admin), the judge held that the district judge would have ordered discharge if she had had the additional material.

5. It was unnecessary to determine the Article 3 ground.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal and quashed the extradition order: [2017] EWHC 2757 (Admin).
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Baraitser ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 8 November 2016.