Damian Boguszewski v Poliwh Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3241 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4021/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2021] EWHC 3241 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/4021/2021
George Hepburne Scott (instructed by Bark & Co Solicitors) for the Applicant
Tom Cockroft (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 1/12/21
Judgment as delivered in open court at the hearing
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Note: This judgment was produced for the parties, approved by the Judge, after using voice-recognition software during an ex tempore judgment.
Introduction
This is an application for bail in an extradition case.
Why a remote hearing?
The hearing was originally listed in person at the Royal Courts of Justice. A request was subsequently made, which I granted, for a fully remote hearing by Microsoft Teams. Both Counsel were satisfied, as was and am I, that that mode of hearing involves no prejudice to the interests of their clients. The reason for the request, and the reason for granting it, was that both Counsel in this case also had in-person hearing commitments, listed in other courts, in other extradition and criminal proceedings. A remote hearing in this case ensured that Counsel would be able to continue to act for all of their clients in all of the cases. Counsel each accessed the hearing from the court buildings where they were scheduled to appear in their other cases. In my judgment, it can be in the interests of justice and in the public interest and it was in the present case to use the mode of a fully remote hearing to secure that consequence, at least in the context of the pandemic and the need to avoid (or deal with) court hearing backlogs, and where there can be difficulties in finding new Counsel to step into cases at short notice. The interests of justice have been promoted. The interests of open justice were secured. The case and its start time were published in the cause list, together with an email address usable by any member of the press or public who wished to observe this public hearing. Because I was agreeing to schedule remote hearings with an earlier start to the court day, I decided against a “hybrid” hearing with me sitting in open court. That would have had an avoidable knock-on effect for listing and for court staff. I conducted this hearing from my Judge's room at the RCJ. Anyone could observe it, as several did.
Evacuation
During the remote hearing, one of the Counsel found themselves being evacuated from the court building from which they were accessing the hearing. We adjourned part heard and I made an announcement ensuring that all observers had my clerk's email address and could express their wish to join the resumed hearing. The resumption time was communicated by email to all concerned.
Context
The Applicant is aged 28 and is wanted for extradition to Poland. Having been refused bail a number of occasions in the magistrates court, and having made a serious attempt at suicide in mid-October 2021, an application to this Court for bail came before Chamberlain J on 11 November 2021. His judgment [2021] EWHC 3143 (Admin) sets out the background in some detail and explains why he refused bail on the grounds of the risk of failure to surrender. In the course of his judgment, Chamberlain J referred to the issue of whether the Applicant's mental health condition was being exacerbated, or the risk of suicide significantly increased, by his continued detention. He added at paragraph 10: “if medical evidence were to emerge as to any link between his condition and continued detention – and, in particular, as to any link between the risk of suicide and continued detention – [the Applicant] could, of course, make a further application on the basis of that evidence. If such an application were made, it would have to be considered alongside all the other material”. The medical records were subsequently made available and an application for bail was made in the magistrates' court on 22 November 2021, which DJ Hamilton refused, saying this: “I have seen the medical documents re the suicide attempt on 11 October, the reasons are not particularly clear but appear to be mixed, but I do take into account that there have thankfully been no repetitions of that behaviour in the six or so weeks since then and also that he is receiving care and treatment from the prison”. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to consider afresh, in the circumstances of this case, whether bail is appropriate in the light of the medical records alongside all the other material.
The mental health concerns
I accept Mr Hepburne Scott's submission that there is a link between exacerbation of the Applicant's psychiatric difficulties and his clinical depression on the one hand and his incarceration on the other; both inherently (as he puts it) and also as a link finding some reflection in what the Applicant is recorded in the medical records as having told clinicians. I proceed on the basis that there is some link between the Applicant's mental health and his incarceration; and that there was some link between incarceration and his serious suicide attempt. It took place a month into his detention on remand in these extradition proceedings, he having been arrested on 19 September 2021, at a time of hopelessness when he felt he had nothing to live for, and when he took an opportunity while his cellmate was in the shower. That has to be put alongside other features regarding his clinical depression and psychiatric difficulties. One feature is his description, reflected in his response recorded in the medical records, of the fact that he does not consider the prescribed antidepressants as materially helping him. Another is his expressed and understandable hope that if he were able to access ‘talking therapy’ in the community that would be of significant benefit. I accept Mr Hepburne Scott's submission on instructions that arrangements have been made through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adam Sebastian Baranowski v Polish Judicial Authority
...for bail in an extradition case. The case was listed for a remote hearing for the same reasons which I explained in Boguszewski [2021] EWHC 3241 (Admin) at §2. Both Counsel were satisfied, as was and am I, that this mode of hearing by Ms Teams involved no prejudice to the interests of thei......