Dariusz Krzysztof Wozniak v Regional Court in Opole Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Sweeney |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 575 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5733/2014 |
| Date | 11 February 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 575 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Sweeney
CO/5733/2014
The Appellant appeared in person via video link
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented
The appellant appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the EA") against the decision of District Judge McPhee, made on 4 December 2014 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court, to order his extradition to Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued by the respondent on 5 December 2013 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 26 February 2014 to serve the remainder, namely 5 years 6 months and 22 days, of a 6 year sentence imposed for four offences variously committed during the period between May and August 2005, namely one of robbery in which injury was caused and there was an element of false imprisonment; and three drugs offences, to all of which the appellant had pleaded guilty on 19 January 2006.
The broad background is that having been sentenced on 19 January 2006 the appellant was released from prison that same day on compassionate grounds, but was made subject to police supervision and a prohibition on leaving the country. On 2 November 2006 the appellant was required to return to prison but he failed to do so. The police were ordered to search for him and did so without success. Eventually, in October 2013, the respondent received information that the appellant was in this country and hence the EAW was issued 2 months later. The appellant was arrested on 21 March 2014 and the extradition hearing took place on 4 December 2014. During the extradition hearing issues under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 25 of the EA were raised. The appellant gave evidence to the following effect:
(1) He was released from prison on 19 January 2006 on compassionate grounds in order to assist his mother who was suffering from cancer;
(2) He left Poland in order to avoid serving the prison sentence and in the hope that he could find work to send money to Poland for his mother's treatment;
(3) He has no family in the United Kingdom;
(4) He takes antidepressant medication. He was provided with medication while in prison in Poland. He had a history of self harming and attempting suicide. When he harmed or tried to harm himself he always received appropriate treatment. When he attempted to hang himself he was moved to an isolation cell;
(5) He fears reprisals from non-State actors in prison because he acted as an informant and because he still owes money to those involved in the supply of drugs;
(6) He received threats in prison but he was never attacked or harmed except by his only hand.
Psychiatric reports from Dr Andrew Forrester were also put before the District Judge. Dr Forrester concluded that the appellant suffers from a recurrent depressive disorder but that the appellant's condition is not such as would require compulsory admission to hospital for assessment or treatment. Dr Forrester believed that the appellant had an increased risk of suicide and presented a significant risk of completed suicide.
In his careful judgment, the District Judge said this in relation to Article 3:
"His difficulty is in providing any evidence of the [risk of violation of Article 3]. He has a high hurdle to overcome if he is to persuade a court that the prison system of another European country, a member of the EU and signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights has such a systemic problem within the prison system that he cannot be afforded any proper protection from likely attack and reprisal at the hand of non state actors. Unless he can show this he will be unable to establish that there is a real risk of breach of Article 3 in his surrender to Poland. In circumstances where he was in the Polish prison system for 5 months and was never subject to an attack, where his last experience of the Polish prison system was 8 years ago he is unable to satisfy me that he is even close to approaching that threshold test."
As to Article 8, the District Judge ruled as follows:
"This is not one of those cases in which it can properly be said that the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe. The circumstances of the requested person are not such as would or should displace the treaty obligations of the United Kingdom and the weighty public interest in extradition and for serious offences such as these. The requested person must know and understand that this court should respect the decisions of the Polish court, that of another European country, signatory to the ECHR to seek his surrender.
The request for surrender for serious offences and to serve a lengthy sentence of imprisonment in the scheme of the European framework decision in the circumstances he describes and which I have accepted and coupled with his earlier and current poor mental health remains proportionate to the constant and weighty public interest in extradition that people accused of crimes should be brought to trial, that people convicted of crimes should serve their sentences, that the United Kingdom should honour its treaty obligation to other countries, and that there should be no safe havens to which either can flee in the belief they will not be sent back. This is a case where the only delay to his serving the prison sentence was his own absconding from...
To continue reading
Request your trial