Arkadiusz Krampa v Regional Court in Gdansk (Poland)

Evidence of serious ill-treatment in a foreign prison does not by itself establish an arguable Article 3 bar to extradition. The presumption that a Council of Europe and EU state will comply with Article 3 is displaced only by objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information providing clear, cogent and compelling evidence of systemic, generalised or sufficiently localised deficiencies.

Even where that threshold is crossed, the court must consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would face a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment and may seek further information or assurances. The assessment must distinguish arguability from the substantive test and must consider the authorities’ response to the alleged ill-treatment.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Poland to serve the balance of an aggregated custodial sentence for fraud and robbery. A district judge ordered extradition on 7 November 2022. The appellant abandoned his Article 8 ground and sought to amend his appeal to rely on Article 3, adducing reports concerning alleged violence by prison officers at Barczewo Prison.

He also sought permission to adduce fresh evidence, an extension of the representation order and time to instruct an expert. The central issue was whether the material gave rise to an arguable basis for resisting extradition because, on the assumed premise that he would be imprisoned at Barczewo Prison, he would face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

1. Outcome. Permission to amend the grounds of appeal, permission to adduce fresh evidence, permission to appeal and an extension of the representation order were refused. There was consequently no Article 3 bar to extradition.
2. The court proceeded on the assumed premise that the appellant might be incarcerated at Barczewo Prison. The reports contained serious allegations of violence, including alleged torture and waterboarding by some prison officers, and references to unmonitored rooms and possible organised violence.
3. Following Litwinczuk v Poland [2021] EWHC 2735 (Admin), the court identified two distinct thresholds. The Displacement Threshold requires exceptional evidence sufficient to displace the strong presumption that Poland, as a Council of Europe and EU state, is willing and able to comply with Article 3. The evidence must be objective, reliable, specific and properly updated, and demonstrate clear, cogent and compelling systemic, generalised or sufficiently localised deficiencies.
4. The Aranyosi Threshold asks whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would face a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. If that threshold is met, the requesting state must be given an opportunity to address the risk through further information or assurances. The court emphasised the distinction between a permission-stage assessment of arguability and the substantive assessment.
5. The evidence did not arguably cross either threshold. In assessing the material, the court gave substantial weight to the response of the Polish authorities: unannounced inspections, follow-up investigations, referrals to the prosecutor, publication of the reports and an ongoing investigation involving numerous alleged victims and witnesses. These matters showed that the concerns were being treated seriously and did not arguably displace the presumption of compliance.
6. The court also refused the proposed expert evidence and further evidence-gathering exercise. The available public material could be obtained, translated and considered, and there was no sufficient information gap justifying delay while further developments emerged.
7. In accordance with Miklis v Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 (Admin), the existence of human rights violations does not itself establish that the individual concerned would face a future risk. Relevant considerations include whether violations are systemic, their frequency and the individual’s particular vulnerability. The present evidence fell substantially short of establishing an arguable Article 3 bar.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The district judge ordered extradition on 7 November 2022. The High Court refused permission to amend, permission to adduce fresh evidence, permission to appeal and an extension of the representation order.