Rot v District Court of Lublin Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mitting J |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4237/2010 |
| Date | 23 June 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Mr Justice Mitting
CO/4237/2010
Miss Corinne Bramwell (instructed by Kaim Todner Solicitors, London, EC4) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Ben Lloyd (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
MR. JUSTICE MITTING: Jan Rot is a 54 year old Polish citizen. He was prosecuted in the Provincial Court at Chelm in Poland for what can loosely be described as people trafficking. He was convicted. On 18th October 2004 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, of which one year, eight months and 28 days remain to be served. The judgment became “valid”, in other words final, on 22nd April 2005. Despite the sentence he remained on bail to surrender when required to do so to serve his sentence. He was required to surrender on 17th November 2006 but did not do so. He had by then already fled to the United Kingdom on 5th March 2006, albeit in circumstances, as the District Judge found, in which he knew that he was likely to be required to serve the sentence.
Mr Rot was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant on 1st June 2009. On 30th March 2010 District Judge Evans ordered his extradition after a hearing. The reason why only one year, eight months and 28 days of the two years sentence remained to be served by Mr Rot appears to have been that he had spent time in preventative detention in connection with the offence beforehand. A letter from the Judicial Authority of 1st October 2009, which was taken into account by the District Judge, stated that he had been in preventative detention from 11th March 2003 until 11th July 2003 and again from 6th November 2003 until 11th May 2004, on each occasion in Chelm prison. Those appear to be the two periods of detention to which Mr Rot referred when interviewed by Dr Cree, a consultant forensic psychologist, for the purpose of the report which he prepared dated 27th July 2009 which was put in on Mr Rot's behalf before the District Judge. Mr Rot's case before the District Judge was that his extradition to Poland would be incompatible with his human rights, in particular with his rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8, under section 21(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, and that by reason of his mental condition it would be oppressive to extradite him under section 25(2).
There was uncontradicted evidence in Dr Cree's report that Mr Rot was diabetic and had sustained intermittent bouts of depression for which he had received appropriate medication since the 1990s. Mr Rot told him that he had attempted to commit suicide in Poland in two circumstances and on four occasions: first, twice when at liberty when under financial stress and, secondly, twice when in prison when subjected to abuse by Ukrainian prisoners (see paragraph 4.6 of Dr Cree's report). There was no evidence to contradict the first of these assertions but there was to contradict the second. The Judicial Authority's letter of 1st October 2009 stated that he had made no suicide attempts during either period of detention, and during the second time had not been the victim of violence at the hands of other inmates. The letter did state that on two occasions he had told the prison authorities that he had attempted suicide on four occasions whilst at liberty. Mr Rot also told the District Judge that soon after he was released in May 2004 he was taken to the woods by Ukrainian gangsters, beaten, kicked, clubbed and made to dig his own grave. The District Judge noted that despite that he did not then leave Poland but remained for well over a year.
There were two documented incidents in HMP Wandsworth which occurred before the hearing. On 5th June 2009 Mr Rot was found suspended from a piece of clothing. He was breathing, the report says, on arrival. Whether that is upon his arrival elsewhere or on arrival of staff at the prison is not clear. The reason was that he was apparently frustrated by his inability to contact his family. On 27th June 2009 he tied a piece of string from a bedsheet round his neck and attempted to strangle himself. Again, the reason was because he had been denied a telephone call. Additionally, he was angry about his medication. There has been one similar incident since. On 15th April 2010 he was found “after he had attempted to hang himself on the landing bars”. He was assisted to his cell whereupon he placed another ligature around his neck. He was then taken to a holding cell. The notes from HMP Wandsworth also contain information that he had stopped taking medicine and had stopped eating. It was noted on 14 April 2010 that he was not eating “to protest his deportation to Poland”. On 20th April 2010 and again on 29th April he refused medication. On 19th May he refused it. On 28th May it was noted that he was not complying with his insulin regime. He told Dr Cree that he would rather kill himself than subject himself to a repeat of…
“…the torture he experienced both in prison and in the community in 2003 and 2004”.
In Dr Cree's opinion, though Mr Rot had responded well to anti-depressant therapy, his “risk of further events of attempted suicide would increase were he to be extradited to Poland”. He did not believe that his account was fabricated. The District Judge did:
“21. Whilst on remand prior to his departure he claims to have been tortured. The prison guards were unable or unwilling to help him because he had implicated police officers in the people smuggling events and Polish prisons are not well run. He was beaten many times in the washroom by inmates and in prison the guards turned a blind eye to what was going on. Further, whenever he infringed some minor prison regulation or rule the guards would fine him and if he didn't pay he would be tortured by the guards. It was very stressful for him. He is convinced that if returned to a Polish prison the Ukrainian gangs would get him and he will be killed.
22. I found the defendant a very poor witness. Little of what he said had the ring of truth about it. I believe his evidence was a not very elaborate story invented in an attempt to defeat this extradition request. I note he is 53 years old and in the EAW when describing his conduct it says ‘he led an organised group’ (my emphasis). The tenor of the evidence presented on his behalf was to suggest that he is a weak man and vulnerable, not a leader. I believe he has exaggerated his concerns in relation to the Ukrainian gangs. Many of the events about which he speaks are now somewhat historical. I do not believe he was mistreated, either by prison guards or Ukrainian prisoners whilst he was held on remand. I am satisfied that there are no substantial grounds for believing that he was at a real risk of suffering Article 3 ill-treatment, either at the hands of the prison guards or of fellow prisoners whilst he is held in a Polish prison. As to what happened to him when he was in Poland but not in prison I refer to the account he gave Dr Cree at the last five lines of paragraph 4.7 and the first four lines of 4.8 of his report. If that account were true, I am surprised he remained in Poland for a further year after the incident. That suggests to me either the incident never...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform v Machaczka
...(ADMIN) HOWES v HM ADVOCATE 2010 SCL 341 2010 SLT 337 2009 HCJAC 94 R (ROT) v DISTRICT COURT OF LUBLIN, POLAND 2010 AER (D) 277 (JUL) 2010 EWHC 1820 (ADMIN) R (PROSSER) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2010 ACD 57 2010 AER (D) 125 (APR) 2010 EWHC 845 (ADMIN) MIN FOR JUSTICE v JOHNSTON......
-
(1) R Ian Griffin (Claimant) City of Westminster Magistrates Court (Defendant) Tribunal de Grande Instance France (Interested Party) (2) Ian Griffin (Appellant) Tribunal de Grande Instance France (Respondent)
...to avoid extradition without any real intention to commit suicide if his attempt fails. 44 The next case in point of time is Rot v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin) decided by Mitting J on 23 June 2010. In paragraph 13 of his judgment Mitting J said:- "The question m......
-
I Polish Judicial Authority v Mariusz Wolkowicz (Alias Del Ponti)
...EWHC 1845 (Admin), Howes v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 94, (2010) SLT 337, Prosser v Secretary of State [2010] EWHC 845 (Admin), Rot v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin), S v Court of Bologna [2010] EWHC 1184 (Admin), Wrobel v Poland [2011] EWHC 374 (Admin), Mazurkiewicz......
-
Laszlo Nikolics v The City Court of Szekszard (A Judicial Authority in Hungary)
...Krolik and others v. Several Judicial Authorities of Poland [2013] 1 WLR 490 at paras 3–7 and Rot v. District Court of Eubin Poland 2010 EWHC 1820 (Admin) at paras 10–11. However, in Agius v. Malta [2011] EWHC 759 (Admin) Sullivan LJ noted that the assumption that the state party to the ECH......
-
Shrien Dewani: A Guideline Case On Extradition And Mental Health?
...One month later, the Administrative Court was again presented with a suicide case. In Jan Rot v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin) the Judicial Authority argued that the facts in Jansons - uncontradicted evidence that the requested person who has made a serious attemp......
-
Local law repercussions on EU extradition law
...under Article 13 of the Convention. The law remained settled for a year or so,until another ECtHR case brought about a change.27. [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin), para 11.28. Appl. no. 32733/08.Niblock and Oehmichen Rebuttable presumption of complianceIn 2011, the High Court was led to reconsider ......
-
The European Arrest Warrant: The Role of Judges When Human Rights are at Risk
...[2008] ECHR 1781, this principle was rs t applied to an ext radition cas e in R (Jan Rot) v Di strict Court of Lubland , Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin).29 P. 18. Catherine Hea rd and Daniel Manse ll142 I ntersentiais approach ignores the fact that signatories to the ECHR are frequently f......