Sylwester Debicki v The District Court in Gdansk, Poland

Under section 25(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition will be unjust or oppressive only where the evidence reaches a high threshold. A claimed risk of suicide arising during the extradition process does not ordinarily meet that threshold without strong evidence that the requesting state will fail to protect the requested person. Evidence of mental ill-health must therefore address both the possible escalation of risk and the protective measures available in the receiving state. In an Article 8 challenge, delay, custody, family circumstances and possible early release must be assessed in context. A fugitive cannot rely on the sentencing court’s absence of mitigation caused by his own evasion of justice.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 27 November 2023 for his extradition to Poland to serve an eight-month sentence for giving false testimony. He relied on mental-health and suicide-risk evidence under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, and on Article 8 of the Convention. After the magistrates’ decision, he attempted suicide, obtained psychiatric evidence, became the father of a child, and was remanded in custody after breaching extradition bail conditions. He sought to rely on further evidence and to adjourn pending criminal proceedings in England and a Supreme Court appeal concerning Polish early-release provisions. The central issues were whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive, and whether the further evidence altered the Article 8 balance.

Appeal dismissed. The further evidence was not admitted, and the applications for an adjournment and an extension to the representation order were refused.

1. The evidence did not approach the high threshold in section 25(2) of the Extradition Act 2003. The psychiatric material showed that suicide risk might arise or worsen during the extradition process, but did not address protective measures in Polish custody or establish that Poland would fail to protect the appellant.
2. The court applied the presumption identified in Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz and Others [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin) that the receiving state would ordinarily discharge its responsibility to prevent suicide absent strong evidence to the contrary. The same reasoning applied to removal and custody in the United Kingdom. A further psychiatric report would not meet the evidential gap.
3. The prison medical records and lay evidence were not decisive on section 25. The proposed adjournments were unjustified. Any early-release question was for the Polish justice system.
4. The Article 8 balance remained in favour of extradition. The appellant’s absence from sentencing resulted from his status as a fugitive, so he could not rely on mitigation that the Polish court had not heard. Delay, time spent on remand, family life and Brexit uncertainty did not outweigh the strong public interest in extradition.
5. The court indicated that, following dismissal, it might consider an order under sections 36B or 36C of the Extradition Act 2003 in light of the imminent resolution of the English criminal proceedings.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Poland on 27 November 2023.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission having been granted by Hill J, Mr Justice Kerr dismissed the appeal and refused the applications to admit further evidence and adjourn.