Michal Rawski v The Lublin Provincial Court Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Simon |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 668 (Admin) |
| Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/10661/2012 |
[2013] EWHC 668 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Simon
CO/10661/2012
Mr B Keith (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr N Hearn (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
( As approved)
This is an application to adjourn, advanced by Mr Keith on behalf of the appellant, Michael Rawski; and the grounds for seeking an adjournment are that he wishes to investigate, possibly with his client and possibly with a view to raising an argument, that the appellant was classified as a dangerous prisoner and was subject to solitary confinement and constant watch when he was a prisoner in Poland. That this matter, and in particular that he was a category N prisoner, was not and should have been raised in front of the District Judge, was due, Mr Keith says, to the fact that the person representing him, who was a paralegal fluent Polish speaker, failed properly to present his case.
A statement that has been prepared by Giovanna Fiorentino, who is a solicitor currently employed by the previous solicitors, is to the effect that any instructions obtained by Ms Kucharska were reviewed by her. He now says that he told Ms Kucharska about the conditions of his imprisonment in Poland and his categorisation as an N prisoner. There is no evidence of that, she finds, and in the circumstances it has been necessary to come off the record.
Mr Keith submits that the question whether he was a category N prisoner, or would be a category N prisoner, is a material matter which the court ought to deal with, notwithstanding that there is no present evidence before the court in relation to it. In my view it does not justify an adjournment. The court will obviously hear submissions, which can put an argument on the basis of the contingency that he was a category N prisoner, or would be a category N prisoner, but in my judgment it is not proportionate, or necessary or a requirement of fairness for the matter to be adjourned so that further evidence should be put before the court.
( )
This appeal raises an issue under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 whether the mental condition of the appellant is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The appellant is sought so that he may serve the remaining part of a sentence imposed for the offence of causing the death of a fellow prisoner by a long period of mistreatment resulting in the victim's suicide. According to the European Arrest Warrant, dated 7 June 2011, this was the second offence of mistreatment of a fellow prisoner.
On 29 October 2007, he was sentenced to a term of 12 years' imprisonment of which nine years, nine months and 25 days are still to be served. Senior District Judge Riddle heard evidence from the appellant and described him as an "unimpressive witness", who avoided answering direct questions, sometimes deliberately. In particular, he refused to answer questions about the offence for which he had been convicted, since he said he intended to appeal. On one of the important issues of threats to him and the sequence of events which led him to leave Poland, he was "vague and contradictory". Having heard the evidence the District Judge accepted that there are dangerous gangsters in Poland and that he might be at risk if he were returned due to the nature of the offence. However, he was not satisfied that he left Poland in fear of his life (see page 5).
The judge then went on to consider the central issue raised on this appeal: the appellant's suicide risk. He referred to the psychiatric report of Dr Liam Dodge, dated 7 December 2012, describing it as "thoughtful and helpful". Dr Dodge described the appellant as meeting the diagnostic criteria for mental and behavioural disorders due to multiple drug use, with an alternative diagnosis of mixed personality disorder. He did not think the appellant met the diagnostic criteria for any more severe or enduring mental illness, for example, oppressive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, paranoid schizophrenia or delusional disorder.
So far as the risk of suicide was concerned, the appellant has a history of acting on suicidal ideation, including two serious attempts while in Poland. While in this country at HMP Wandsworth he has made one less serious attempt, but has continued to state suicidal intent. Dr Dodge concluded that should he be extradited there would be a high risk of further acts based on his suicidal attempt. A "high risk" means that he is very likely to act on his suicidal ideation unless there is some form of intervention. If he is to be extradited Dr Dodge recommended that he be subject to regular monitoring procedures.
The appellant's legal advisers applied to adjourn the hearing before the Senior District Judge to investigate whether the appellant's condition can be properly catered for in a Polish prison system. The application was refused. As the District Judge noted:
"I refused that application. Firstly, Polish prison conditions have been examined on numerous occasions and are well-known to this court. The Polish prison system has proper medical care facilities and does, where appropriate, transfer people to hospitals and other therapeutic environments. Secondly, the conditions outlined by the expert are not, on the face of it, being treated in this country or indeed susceptible to treatment. Thirdly, the risks identified by Dr Dodge are not sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v I. S
...be effective.' (Paragraph 10)" 148 The Court was further referred to the case of Michal Rawski v. The Lublin Provincial Court Poland [2013] EWHC 668 (Admin), again a decision of the High Court of England and Wales, Administrative Division, a case where surrender on foot of a European arrest......