Rutyna v Regional Court in Nowy Sacz Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SIMON |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 2126 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/12354/2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 29 June 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 2126 (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/12354/2011
Miss R Hill (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr A Harbinson (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a decision of District Judge Evans made on 13 December 2011, ordering the appellant's extradition to Poland pursuant to an accusation European arrest warrant issued on 21 February 2011, and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 2 December 2011.
His extradition is sought for the purposes of standing trial for three offences: a street robbery in November 2006, possession of cannabis, and supplying cannabis some time between December 2005 and January 2007.
At the hearing on 13 December, the appellant contested his extradition on the grounds that the extradition would be contrary to his rights under article 3 of the ECHR, freedom from degrading treatment or punishment. In his self-drawn notice of appeal dated 19 December, the grounds, so far as material, were that he feared for his life because people had said they would kill him if he went back to Poland. This raised a potential argument under article 2.
Since then, the argument has focused on the appellant's mental health and the application of section 25 of the 2003 Act. No evidence has been served from the appellant himself, but there are two psychiatric reports from Dr Fazel, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. The first is dated 28 April and the second 13 May 2012.
In the 28 April report, Dr Fazel described an examination of the appellant on 12 April, but made it clear that he had not seen any medical or nursing records. He referred to the appellant's description of his psychiatric history, which included suicide attempts in Poland. He also referred to an incident when he had taken a razor and cut his neck and arm in his cell while on remand, and described the appellant as saying he wanted to die.
At paragraph 4.4, he said that the appellant had told him that he was afraid of what would happen in prison in London, and went on to say:
"As a consequence Mr Rutyna says that he would have to, 'Kill myself' and thinks that he would cut his veins or perhaps use thread or sheets to hang himself."
He also described a history of alcohol abuse and delusions, as well as the suicidal ideation. The appellant reported self-harming, and Dr Fazel saw the lacerations.
It was Dr Fazel's view that it was likely that the appellant currently had a severe mental illness (paragraph 5.2). It was not possible to be certain of any diagnosis from one assessment. It was not possible to discount the possibility that the appellant was inventing his symptoms, although this was not likely (paragraph 5.2). Individuals who self lacerate as part of a suicide attempt were more likely to target arteries in their arms than an area of the neck (as the appellant had done) which did not have major arteries or veins, although it was close to the larynx (again, paragraph 5.2).
At paragraph 5.5 of his report, Dr Fazel considered the risk of suicide if the appellant were extradited to Poland as being, "extremely high." He gave three reasons for this:
"First, he has recently self harmed quite severely. The severity of the act is partly determined by his stated intention to die, the location of his injuries, his neck and the final act, telling the other inmate to tell his girlfriend that he loves her. However, this level of severity is not entirely consistent with self-harming in the presence of another inmate, but the inconsistencies suggest to me an abnormal mental state.
"In addition, he has a history of self-harm. The evidence suggests that a history of self-harm increases the risk of completed suicide, particularly if violent methods are used. Although most self-harmers will not complete suicide, I'm not aware that the probability of completed suicide following self-harm in prisoners has been accurately estimated.
"Second, Mr Rutyna has ongoing suicidal ideation and states that this would heighten if returned to Poland. His reported intentions were quite fixed to kill himself if returned to Poland, and he did not seem open to alternatives to deal with any problem he would face on his return.
"Third, he has a number of risk factors for completing suicide in prison, including current mental health problems, a history of suicide attempts within custody and outside, and a history of alcohol abuse."
Finally, at paragraph 5.7 in the last sentence, he says this:
"Thus, although it is my view that Mr Rutyna's risk is very high, this cannot provide a probability of completed suicide with any degree of accuracy."
At paragraph 5.8, he answered a question about the likely effect of extradition to Poland. He said this:
"I have no reason to believe that Mr Rutyna would not receive treatment for his mental illness in a Polish prison and am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the suicide rate is markedly higher in Polish prisons compared with other countries. However, I note that Mr Rutyna believes that he will be killed in Poland and this perception will likely increase his risks of suicide, severe self-harm and worsening mental health."
By the time he came to write the 13 May report, Dr Fazel had seen the appellant's medical reports from 25 September 2010 to 19 April 2012. He had been arrested in relation to the warrant on 9 December 2011, and it is unclear whether the medical reports that were available to Dr Fazel related to a prior period when he was on remand or whether he had his freedom during that period.
In any event, he noted the following: the appellant had self-harmed on 13 March 2012 and was seen by a mental health nurse on 28 March, to whom he said he was not suicidal. It was agreed between the appellant and the mental health nurse on 28 March that there was little the primary care mental health team could offer, and so no follow up appointment was arranged.
On 3 April, there was a further self-harm incident, involving the appellant fighting with another inmate. This was the self-harm incident which had given rise to the conclusions in the first report. The appellant told a mental health nurse on 4 April that he was not suicidal.
He was seen by a mental health nurse on 8 April and did not disclose any suicidal thoughts. Dr Fazel was of the view that a period of inpatient assessment was required to exclude the possibility that the appellant was suffering from a severe mental illness.
On 27 April, Dr Fazel had spoken to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial