Tworkowski v Judicial Authority of Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mitting J |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1502 (Admin) |
| Date | 18 May 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/132/2011 |
Neutral Citation: [2011] EWHC 1502 (Admin)
Court and Reference: Administrative Court,
Judge: Mitting J
CO/132/2011
Appearances: M Healey (instructed by Vega & Co) for the Appellant; L Mackinnon (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Respondent.
Issue: Whether extradition would expose T to a real risk of treatment contrary to Art 3 on the basis of alleged inability on the part of Polish authorities to protect him from perceived risks to his life in prison.
Facts: T's extradition was sought, by means of a conviction EAW, to serve a sentence of imprisonment. Before the District Judge he claimed that his life would be at risk on return from Poland, as he owed money to a gang which he would be unable to repay. He claimed that the gang's pervasive connections in prisons would make it easy to kill him in detention.
1. A conviction European arrest warrant was issued by the regional court in Ostroleka (?)1 on 11 December 2008. It was certified by SOCA on 4 October 2010. The appellant was arrested on 12 October. On 4 January 2011, District Judge Evans ordered his extradition. There was a single ground of challenge and a single ground of appeal: that he should have found that extradition was barred by s21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Mr Henley, who appeared in the court below and for the appellant in this appeal, does not challenge the decision of the District Judge to refuse an adjournment to the appellant to permit him to put in further evidence on that issue.
3. The ground of challenge was founded on a single paragraph in the witness statement prepared for the purpose of the extradition proceedings and dated the same day as the hearing, 4 January 2011:
‘Before leaving Poland I was also in debt to some members of a gang in Przasnysz. I had a gambling habit and borrowed roughly £600, unable to pay them back. I know that if I were made to return to Poland they would want their money and I do not have it. I fear for my life as they will kill me when they find out I am back in Przasnys. Even if I am in prison they have so many connections they will kill inside and it would probably be easier to do it there than outside’.
4. The District Judge admitted that statement in evidence, but declined to permit the appellant to be called, to be cross-examined upon his statement.
5. On the basis of that statement, Mr Henley submitted that the challenge under s21 was made out and that it required no further evidence to substantiate it. The District Judge expressed his findings as follows:
‘I have not allowed the defendant to give evidence on oath about his concerns. I have his proof of evidence. I am content to accept that what he says there is true and that he does have these genuine concerns. Accordingly, I see no value in having him repeat it from the witness box. There is no other evidence which the defendant wishes to put before me which is available today. Given the decisions in Dykowski, Rot and Klimas I am entitled to assume that the Polish Prison Chief Governor, will, if the defendant seeks his help, be in a position to provide reasonable protection’.
6. Mr Henley tells me that if he had had the opportunity afforded by an adjournment he would have wanted to put in evidence from the appellant's mother to substantiate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Artur Krolik, Sylwester Kazmierczak, Piotr Zwolinski, Tomasz Lachowski, Tomasz Soltan, Daniel Walachowski v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland
...of this court in Targonsinski and Agius. It also confirms the observations of Mitting J in Tworkowski v Judicial Authority of Poland[2011] Extradition LR 212 at para 15 as to the type of evidence required, namely that something approaching an international consensus is required, if the pres......
-
Arunas Aleksynas and Others v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania and Another
...99 Thirdly, reference was made by the parties to the following dictum of Mitting J in paragraph 15 of his judgment in Tworkowski v Judicial Authority of Poland [2011] EWHC 1502 (Admin): "… [I]t seems to me that the circumstances in which an applicant can satisfy a District Judge that, if e......
-
Krolik and Others v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland
...of this court in Targonsinski and Agius. It also confirms the observations of Mitting J in Tworskowski v Judicial Authority of Poland [2011] EWHC 1502 at paragraph 15 as to the type of evidence required, namely that something approaching an international consensus is required, if the presum......
-
Veli Yilmaz and Erkan Yilmaz v Government of Turkey
...of this court in Targonsinski and Agius. It also confirms the observations of Mitting J in Tworskowski v Judicial Authority of Poland [2011] EWHC 1502 at paragraph 15 as to the type of evidence required, namely that something approaching an international consensus is required, if the presum......