BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Polom v Regional Court In Bydgoszcz (Poland) [2024] EWHC 2708 (Admin) (25 October 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/2708.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 2708 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
IRENEUSZ TEODOR POLOM |
Appellant |
|
– and – |
||
REGIONAL COURT IN BYDGOSZCZ (POLAND) |
Respondent |
____________________
Ms Laura Herbert (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service Extradition Unit) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 3rd October 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Collins Rice:
Introduction
The decision under appeal
… has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive disorder of moderate severity. [He] has attempted suicide in the past and has some suicidal thoughts. Dr Walters has said the continuity of his treatment in the UK is important.
Having directed herself on the law, she explained her final decision as follows:
[129] I have considered the submissions by the parties in relation to the balancing exercise. Having undertaken the balancing exercise, I have weighed in the balance the constant and weighty public interest in extradition and that those convicted of crimes should serve their sentences and the UK should not be seen as a safe haven for those to flee. I have found that there has not been culpable delay in this case, and I have found the RP [Requested Person] to be a fugitive since March 2016. The RP is single and does not have any dependants in the UK.
[130] In my view the main issue, under this balancing exercise, is the RP's mental health and suicide risk. I accept the RP has suffered from mental health issues for a number of years and has been diagnosed by Dr Walters as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder of moderate severity. He has a reported attempt to commit suicide on two occasions, in 2020 and 2014, but Dr Walters did not have the details of what happened because the RP would not provide her with details, and she could not be sure the incident in 2014 was a hunger strike. I also accept there is evidence of suicide risk, but I agree with [Counsel for the requesting judicial authority's] submission that the conclusion there is a substantial risk of suicide is a little overstated because in oral evidence Dr Walters accepted the RP has been able to control impulses in the past, has had suicidal thoughts but no firm plans have been put in place and when he has put then in place he has backed out of his own volition. I accept that in the past the RP has benefited from talking therapy and such therapy has been suggested as part of his treatment plan together with a medication. He has had talking therapy before and is on the waiting list. However, neither the RP's mental health nor the risk of suicide is such that it tips the balance against extradition and I find it would not be disproportionate to order the RP's extradition to Poland.
Subsequent litigation history
(a) Application for permission to appeal and to obtain new psychiatric evidence
(b) Application to obtain further psychiatric evidence
(c) Application to obtain neurological evidence
The present appeal
Legal framework
An appellate judge may conclude that the trial judge's conclusion on proportionality was (i) the only possible view, (ii) a view which she considers was right, (iii) a view on which she has doubts, but on balance considers was right, (iv) a view which she cannot say was right or wrong, (v) a view on which she has doubts, but on balance considers was wrong, (vi) a view which she considers was wrong, or (vii) a view which is unsupportable. The appeal must be dismissed if the appellate judge's view is in category (i) to (iv) and allowed if it is in category (vi) or (vii).
Consideration
(a) Evaluating the totality of the evidence
(i) Mr Polom's mental health
(ii) Mr Polom's physical health
(iii) Mr Polom's private life
(iv) The period under curfew conditions
(v) Delay
(b) The proportionality balancing exercise.
(i) Factors favouring extradition
(ii) Factors against extradition
(iii) The proportionality balancing exercise
Decision