Extradition Appeal By Lech Gryc Against The Lord Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Turnbull,Lord Menzies,Lord Bracadale |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 02 December 2016 |
| Published date | 11 January 2017 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2017] HCJAC 1
HCA/2016/000039/XM
Lord Menzies
Lord Bracadale
Lord Turnbull
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD MENZIES
in
EXTRADITION APPEAL
by
LECH GRYC
Appellant
against
THE LORD ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant: Party
Respondent: Dickson, AD; Crown Agent
2 December 2016
[1] The appellant appeals to this court against the decision of the sheriff on 22 September 2016 to order his extradition to the Republic of Poland in terms of section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The basis of the appeal is that the appellant suffers from a medical condition for which he is receiving treatment in Scotland and that if he were to be extradited to Poland he would miss appointments and/or the opportunity of surgery. In addition in his submissions to us today, the appellant asserts that he has been advised that he will not be allowed the opportunity to appeal against his Polish conviction in absence, nor will he have the right to have his case re‑examined.
[2] With regard to this second point, we note that it is clearly stated in the European Arrest Warrant that
“When served the decision, the person concerned will be clearly informed about his/her right for a re‑examination of the case or for an appeal. The person would have a right to participate in the procedures which allow for a re‑examination of the case as far as its subjects matter and new evidence are concerned. Which can also lead to a reversal or change of the previous decision and the person concerned will be informed about the date by which he/she has to apply for such a re‑examination of the case, or to appeal i.e. 7 days.”
We therefore do not consider that there is any substance to the appellant’s latter submission.
[3] With regard to the first and principal ground of appeal, although we have before us the medical records of the appellant which were lodged in the court below, no up‑to‑date medical reports or records have been placed before us today. In particular there is nothing before us to suggest that the appellant suffers from a medical condition which is not capable of being treated by the Polish prison authorities.
[4] The threshold for refusing to extradite a person to a member state of the European Union on medical grounds is a high one. As this court observed in Agnieszka Jantos v The Lord Advocate [2015] HCJAC 32 at paragraph [11]:
“There is a strong but rebuttable presumption that member states of the European Union will not infringe the Convention rights of persons. Extradition is based on reciprocity and there is a general obligation to surrender those who are the subject of legitimate European Arrest...
To continue reading
Request your trial