Wozniak, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court in Lublin

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal pursuant to Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the order of District Judge Purdy on 8 June 2012 whereby he ordered that the appellant be extradited to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence of imprisonment which had been imposed as long ago as 2000 for an offence of manslaughter. The balance due to be served was one year four months and twenty-five days. The sentence originally imposed was one of four years' imprisonment. In 2003 the appellant was released on compassionate grounds but was liable to serve the balance. He, in fact, did not remain in Poland.

2. The victim of the manslaughter was a retired prison officer. As a result, the appellant said he suffered severely in the Polish prison system and - in the circumstances which undoubtedly were very poor back in 2000 - he was ill treated. Indeed, he suffered an injury which may or may not have been accidental resulting in the loss of sight in one eye which, because of the conditions, made it more difficult for him. In addition, he has mental problems and is under the care of a psychiatrist. He was under the care of a psychiatrist in Poland although it appears that the detailed notes of the treatment in Poland have not been forwarded to this country. He applied to this court, through his solicitors who were then acting, for leave to instruct a psychiatrist but that application was refused.

3. Essentially this claim therefore depends upon the assertion that it would be in breach of his human rights - specifically Article 3 - because of the conditions in prison in Poland to return him there. There is no question but that prison conditions in Poland were (to use a mild word) unsatisfactory. That was picked up by a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However there is no question but that matters have improved. Consideration of the conditions in Polish prisons has been raised before in extradition appeals to Poland regularly. It has been often a standard ground for appealing against removal.

4. The latest decision is that of the Divisional Court in Hartung v Circuit Court in Szczecin [2012] EWHC 1884 Admin , a decision of the court consisting of Sir John Thomas PQBD and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker. Essentially that decided, following a succession of other cases which were decided recently, that the conditions in Poland were not such as to contravene Article 3 and it was only if it could be shown that there were very special matters which adversely affected the individual that such a claim could get off the ground. Here, the appellant says that the special matter so far as he is concerned is, first, the fact that he has only one eye and has medical problems and, secondly, the fact that the victim of his crime was a retired prison officer which makes him somewhat unpopular with the prison officers.

5. However there is in my judgment nothing to show that that means that he is himself likely to suffer treatment contrary to Article 3. That was a matter which was raised before the district judge. The district judge did not accept it. The district judge was correct. There was also a family issue raised but that was rejected and correctly rejected.

6. The appellant must recognise that he is a fugitive. He must serve the balance of the sentence and there is no good reason for him to be allowed to remain here.

7. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

8. THE CLAIMANT: ( Translated through interpeter ) Can I ask one question?

9. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Certainly.

10. THE CLAIMANT: Can I lodge a complaint because I do not know the English law?

11. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: No. That is the end of it.