Leszek Henryk Terlecki v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition case, where substantial new medical information raises legitimate concerns about the requested person’s diagnosis, prognosis or treatment, the court may adjourn a renewed permission application to obtain clearer evidence before deciding whether extradition is proportionate or oppressive.

The court may consider under Article 8 the proportionality of extradition in light of the person’s private life. It may also consider whether Extradition Act 2003, section 25 is engaged because extradition would be oppressive by reason of physical condition. Section 25 may permit deferral of extradition, including adjournment under section 25(3)(b) until the statutory condition is no longer satisfied.

District Judge Curtis ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 2 May 2024. The appellant was aged 67 and had 18 months and 9 days of imprisonment remaining for serious historical offences. The District Judge concluded that the Article 8 balance clearly favoured extradition.

Morris J later refused permission to appeal on the papers. The appellant renewed his application, initially relying on alleged Brexit uncertainty. By the hearing before Fordham J, however, new medical documents recorded cardiac problems, chronic pancreatitis and confirmed gastric cancer. The central issue was whether further evidence was required before determining the renewed permission application and any medical or Article 8 objections to extradition.

1. Adjournment. The renewed application for permission to appeal was adjourned to the first available date after eight weeks. The court required clearer evidence about the appellant’s diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan before deciding whether extradition should take place.
2. Medical evidence. The new information disclosed legitimate concerns about the appellant’s state of health. The evidence referred to confirmed supraventricular tachycardia, chronic pancreatitis and confirmed gastric cancer, with further oncology assessment pending. A letter from the treating clinician giving as much clarity as possible would assist the court.
3. Legal issues reserved. Once the evidence was clearer, the court would consider Article 8 proportionality and private life, together with any argument under Extradition Act 2003, section 25, concerning oppression by reason of physical condition. Section 25 permits consideration of whether extradition should be deferred rather than permanently prevented. Section 25(3)(b) provides for adjournment until the statutory condition is no longer satisfied.
4. Legal aid. In light of the further documents and submissions, the court granted the application made on 9 September 2024 for legal aid so that new solicitors could represent the appellant.
5. The court emphasised that the adjournment did not determine whether the appellant would be extradited or when extradition might occur.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed permission application was adjourned for at least eight weeks to obtain further medical evidence. Legal aid was granted.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Morris J refused permission to appeal on the papers in August 2024.
• District Judge: District Judge Curtis ordered extradition to Poland on 2 May 2024.