Key Facts
- •Mr. Polom appeals the District Judge's extradition order to Poland to serve a 30-month prison sentence for three burglary convictions.
- •He argued abuse of process, disproportionate impact on his Article 8 rights (private and family life), and that his health rendered extradition unjust or oppressive.
- •His mental health significantly deteriorated after the initial hearing, prompting further psychiatric reports.
- •Subsequent reports showed improvement with medication, but extradition still posed a mental health risk.
- •Mr. Polom also suffered a stroke, adding to his health concerns.
- •A rift developed between Mr. Polom and his son, affecting his private life.
- •Mr. Polom spent over two years under curfew conditions while appealing.
- •The appeal focuses on whether extradition is disproportionate to his Article 8 rights considering his physical and mental health and the delay.
Legal Principles
In Article 8 extradition cases, a judge must balance factors for and against extradition, performing a proportionality assessment.
Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
On appeal, the court determines if the District Judge made the wrong decision; the appellate court may consider if the decision was right, wrong, or unsupportable.
Celinski [24] and Re B [2013] UKSC 33
The Fenyvesi test for admitting fresh evidence requires the evidence to not have existed or been available previously with reasonable diligence, and that it would have changed the outcome.
Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin)
In 'fresh evidence' and 'change of circumstance' cases, an appeal is allowed only if the appellant should be discharged under Article 8, requiring the appellate court to reach its own conclusions based on all available evidence.
Jozsa v Hungary [2023] EWHC 2404 (Admin)
In extradition cases, there's a rebuttable presumption that the requesting state will provide necessary medical treatment to an extradited person in custody.
Kowalski v Poland [2017] EWHC 1044 (Admin)
Outcomes
Mr. Polom's appeal is dismissed; extradition is ordered.
The court considered all evidence, including subsequent developments, and found that the factors favoring extradition (public interest, fugitivity, sentence length) outweighed factors against extradition (delay, mental health, physical health). While Mr. Polom's mental health was a significant concern, it did not reach a level of disproportionality that would prevent extradition, especially given the improvement shown with medication.