Bartosiewicz, R (on the application of) v District Court Warszawa Praga Warsaw

LORD JUSTICE TOULSON: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an Extradition Order, made by District Judge Riddle sitting at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 30 September 2010, based on a European Arrest Warrant issued on 5 March 2009 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 15 August 2010. The warrant is a combined arrest and conviction warrant.

The appellant's extradition was requested so that he can be prosecuted for offences of theft from a motorcar and obtaining property by fraud in 2004, and in order for him to serve the unexpired portion of a sentence of imprisonment for an offence of stealing a mobile phone in 2005. The sentence was 12 months' imprisonment and the unexpired portion is about 7 months. The appellant has explained to me this morning that he would only have to serve half that term, so that the period for which he would be returned in order to serve the remainder of his sentence is short.

The notice of appeal asserts that he is at risk of torture if he is extradited because he was formerly a police informant. It is argued that he should therefore be discharged under section 21, because his return would be in contravention of his rights under Article 3.

The district judge rejected that argument. He noted that there was clear authority that responsibility for protecting the appellant if returned belongs to the Polish authorities and that they should be presumed to be able and willing to comply with their Convention responsibilities unless the contrary is proved. The judge noted that, according to the appellant's evidence, the people who have a motive to take revenge on him for his past activities in giving information which led to their imprisonment have been able to find out where he has been living in England, because he said that he has received threats over here. The judge commented that if they were able to trace him to England, and were determined on doing him harm, he would be at just as much risk in England as he would be in custody in Poland.

It is known to this court that under the Polish prison system there is provision for vulnerable prisoners to be kept in isolation from others, in order to protect them from the risk of attack while in prison. The district judge referred to this in his judgment. He concluded that the circumstances described by the appellant fall far short of the burden that he must discharge to avoid extradition under Article 3.

On this morning's appeal the appellant has made a number of other points. He has said that the offence for which he is being returned was not very serious; that, as already mentioned, the unexpired term is short; that while he has been in this country he has been earning and paying taxes; and that he now has a girlfriend in England and a 2 year old child. In essence, he is saying that it would be disproportionate to return him to Poland in these circumstances.

The powers of the court dealing with an appeal of this kind are very limited. The European Extradition Warrant system is based on the courts of one country executing warrants issued by another, unless there are particular grounds for refusing to do so. The grounds that the appellant seeks to rely on are human rights grounds.

So far as the Article 3 point is concerned, I agree with the conclusion of the district judge. We start with a presumption that the authorities in other Convention States will fulfil their responsibilities under the charter, and there is a heavy burden on an appellant to show that this will not happen in his particular case. I agree that, in this case, the appellant's evidence falls well short of what would have been necessary to make out a case that his return would contravene Article 3.

His Article 8 rights are, of course, engaged; that is to say his rights to respect for his private and family life. That happens whenever somebody is sentenced to a period of imprisonment and, in this case, there is nothing in his personal circumstances which could make his return unlawful under Article 8 grounds.

Having listened to the points which the appellant makes, I am left in no doubt that the judge made the decision which the law required him to make. For the same reason, the law requires me to dismiss this appeal.

So, that, I am afraid, is the end of the matter, Mr Bartosiewicz.

Thank you very much.