Mariusz Szentak v Regional Court of Lublin (Poland)

An extradition appeal should be reopened only where reopening is necessary to avoid real injustice, the circumstances are exceptional, and there is no alternative effective remedy. Medical evidence must receive intense, fact-specific scrutiny. The court should assess the condition, the likely effects of extradition and detention, and the requesting state’s ability to provide individualised care and safeguards.

Serious physical or mental illness, including suicide risk, does not itself make extradition incompatible with Article 8. The court must avoid speculative comparisons between healthcare systems or waiting lists. Specific assurances concerning assessment, treatment, suicide prevention, postponement of imprisonment and electronic monitoring may support extradition where they adequately address the individual’s needs.

The applicant’s extradition to Poland had been ordered by District Judge Zani on 13 December 2021 following a conviction warrant for assault. Permission to appeal was refused by Cavanagh J, and an out-of-time renewed application was refused by Wall J.

After the appeal process had effectively ended, the applicant attempted suicide and further psychiatric and medical evidence became available. The evidence identified PTSD, moderately severe depression, chronic pain, a need for possible spinal surgery and a substantial suicide risk.

Saini J directed a rolled-up hearing of the application to reopen, permission application and substantive appeal. The central questions were whether the new evidence satisfied Criminal Procedure Rule 50.27 and whether the applicant’s health made extradition incompatible with Article 8 or unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Application to reopen refused. The application did not satisfy Criminal Procedure Rule 50.27. Although the applicant’s health condition and the understanding of it had materially developed, reopening was not necessary to avoid real injustice, the circumstances were not truly exceptional, and no basis existed for further adjournment.
2. The court applied the guidance in USA v Bowen concerning finality in extradition proceedings. The reopening jurisdiction is exceptional and is not a means of reconsidering arguments, evidence or material that could have been advanced earlier. A supervening development, a reasonable explanation for its earlier absence and promptness are ordinarily required.
3. Medical issues required the intense, fact-specific approach described in Magiera v District Court of Krakow, Poland. The court considered the applicant’s physical and mental conditions, the effects of extradition and imprisonment, and whether Poland could provide appropriate individualised treatment and safeguards. The Polish assurances, including full examination on arrival, access to treatment, suicide-prevention measures, possible postponement or suspension of imprisonment and eligibility for electronic monitoring, were sufficiently specific to address the evidence.
4. The court declined to speculate about comparative waiting times for elective spinal surgery. There was no reliable evidence of the likely UK surgery date, the operation’s priority, or any Polish delay. Nor was it proper to take speculative sides on possible medical decisions by Polish doctors.
5. The suicide-risk test identified in Turner v Government of the USA was not met because the evidence did not show that the applicant’s mental condition removed his capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide. The section 25 test was not pursued and was not established. The Article 8 balance likewise did not disclose an inevitable or probable incompatibility with extradition.
6. The court rejected an open-ended adjournment pending possible surgery. The later appointment letters supplied no definite timetable and did not materially alter the decision. The application to reopen was refused.

• District Judge: Extradition to Poland was ordered on 13 December 2021.
• High Court: Cavanagh J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 11 March 2022. Wall J refused an out-of-time renewed application and an extension of time on 8 April 2022.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present application to reopen the appeal was refused.