Appeal Under Section 26 Of The Extradition Act 2003 By Agnieszka Jantos Against The Lord Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Dorrian,Lord Menzies,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] HCJAC 32 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Year | 2015 |
| Docket Number | HCA/2014 |
| Published date | 31 March 2015 |
| Date | 26 March 2015 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2015] HCJAC 32
HCA/2014/4939/XM
HCA/2014/4942/XM
HCA/2014/4943/XM
Lord Justice Clerk
Lord Menzies
Lady Dorrian
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in the
APPEALS
under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003
by
AGNIESZKA JANTOS
Appellant;
against
THE LORD ADVOCATE
Respondent:
Appellant: Party
Respondent: D J Dickson, Solicitor Advocate; the Crown Agent
26 March 2015
1 Introduction
[1] The appellant is the subject of three European Arrest Warrants dated between 2009 and 2012. They relate to offences of fraud committed between 1996 and 2001 and of which the appellant has been convicted. She has 2½ years or thereby of imprisonment to serve in respect of the sentences passed.
[2] The appellant first appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 6 May 2014. After sundry postponements of the hearing, to provide the appellant more time for preparation, on 23 October 2014 the sheriff ordered extradition. The appellant appeals on the basis that, in terms of section 25(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, her physical state is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her. In particular, it is said that she would not receive the necessary treatment for her medical condition in Poland.
2 Proceedings before the sheriff
[3] Evidence about the appellant’s medical condition came in the form of letters from Dr Fraser Patrick, who was designed as a consultant haematologist at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (see infra). This confirmed that the appellant has a “polycythaemic disorder”, which causes an over-production of red cells, platelets and white cells in the bone marrow. According to Dr Patrick, the condition currently requires intermittent venesection (the removal of a pint of blood) about once a year and the taking of hydroxycarbamide tablets. Monitoring of the appellant’s blood ought to take place about every two months, when her tablets would also be supplied. These tablets are said by Dr Patrick to be cheap and widely available. Were the appellant’s treatment to be withdrawn, she would be at increased risk of thrombosis. Dr Patrick concluded:
“I do not believe that [the appellant’s] health would be affected by her extradition to Poland and imprisonment as this would not change the management of her condition as long as she has access to hydroxycarbamide tablets and venesection and medical review”.
He repeated that the tablets are used worldwide and he would have been “very surprised” if they were not available in Poland.
[4] The appellant gave evidence, but this was essentially disbelieved by the sheriff as being exaggerated. The sheriff did accept testimony from the appellant’s daughter, to the effect that she had gone to various pharmacies in Krakow and obtained information from the pharmacies there that the tablets were not widely available in Poland. She also obtained information that the appellant could wait some time before obtaining a hospital appointment.
[5] Set against this, the respondent produced a number of letters from judges in Poland. One of them was from Judge Soltysinka-Laszczya of the Third Criminal Division of Krakow District Court. This stated that, having consulted the remand centres in Krakow, a full range of therapies, including venesection, would be available to the appellant throughout her period of custody. Treatment would be at the remand centre or prison or, if circumstances required, outwith the penal facility in specialised hospitals. Treatment with hydroxycarbamide would be fully available, especially if the appellant had been treated with this medication before. The treatment and medical care costs would be paid by the state. There was a letter from Judge Satko, presiding judge of the Second Criminal Division of Tarnów Regional Court, to the effect that the illness mentioned was treated in Polish prisons and that the tablets were available in the pharmacies. Treatment and medication were free. A third judge had reported that issue of medical services was not within the court’s competence although, if there was a problem caused by imprisonment, the appellant could apply to the court for a postponement of imprisonment. A fourth judge had said that, if the appellant had been advised to use the tablets and be subject to venesection, then this was a “possibility”.
[6] The sheriff held that the appellant had failed to establish that her physical condition was such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her. Her condition was treatable in an uncomplicated and non-expensive manner. In addition, the sheriff considered that he was entitled to proceed upon the assurances of the judges about the availability of medical care in Polish prisons. He did not consider that the evidence of the daughter undermined this in any material respect. He was, he said, entitled to take the view that Poland would do what it said it would do. He therefore rejected the appellant’s contention and ordered extradition.
3 Submissions
[7] The appellant had been legally represented by a law agent throughout the first instance proceedings, during which she was on bail. She did not obtain legal aid for an appeal. A Note of Appeal was lodged, however, on 28 October 2014. At a Procedural Hearing on 23 January 2015 the appellant was represented by counsel and agents. The court was advised that the appeal was ready to proceed to a hearing. The court fixed a hearing for 19 March 2015. It appears to have been anticipated that the appellant would fund the appeal privately. However, on the day before the hearing, the court was informed that no funds had been put in place and counsel and agents would be withdrawing from acting. They did this on the morning of the hearing. The appellant was advised by the court that she could move for an adjournment to enable her to seek new representation. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Extradition Appeal By Lech Gryc Against The Lord Advocate
...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......
-
Application For Leave To Appeal Against Extradition By Artur Lewandowski Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...was unable to conclude that extradition would be unjust or oppressive. We note the following comments from the case of Jantos v LA [2015] HCJAC 32, paragraph 11: “There is a strong but rebuttable presumption that member states of the European Union will not infringe the Convention rights of......