The High Court has refused an application to surrender a man to Poland to serve the remaining part of a prison sentence, finding that the renewed proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered on 17 February 2023, Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo said the Polish authorities had not adequately explained why a second European Arrest Warrant was issued more than five years after the High Court refused surrender on medical grounds. The court considered that delay alongside the time since the offences, the respondent’s serious medical condition and the effect surrender would have on his family.
The warrant sought his surrender to serve one year and four months’ imprisonment imposed in 2006, with one year, one month and 16 days remaining. The offences concerned assaults on his father in November and December 2005 and interference with his father as a witness in February 2006. The judgment says the respondent was convicted of both offences.
A previous surrender application was refused by Mr Justice Hunt in October 2015. That decision focused on the respondent’s medical needs, including anticoagulant treatment and supervision for a serious clotting disorder. Hunt J considered that the Polish authorities’ response did not specifically assure that the required treatment would be provided. The Minister did not appeal that decision.
In the renewed proceedings, the High Court sought explanations for the delay and for why the earlier medical assurances had not been given. The Polish issuing authority said the warrant had been amended to reflect an updated limitation date and stated that medical care, Warfarin and monitoring of blood coagulation were generally available. Justice Naidoo found that this did not explain the five-and-a-half-year gap or meaningfully advance the earlier assurances.
The judge said the passage of about 15 years since the offences did not by itself amount to abuse of process, noting that the respondent had left Poland after being sentenced. But he found the delay after the 2015 refusal required an explanation, particularly because that refusal rested on a substantive medical concern rather than a technical defect or transfer difficulty. The absence of an adequate explanation, combined with the other circumstances, amounted to abuse in this case.
The court then considered whether surrender should nevertheless proceed because the abuse was limited. Justice Naidoo described the offences as not minor, but said the sentence suggested the conduct was not at the upper end of seriousness. He also took account of the respondent’s continuing, potentially life-threatening condition, the effect on his family and his evidence that he and his father were now on good terms. He was not satisfied that surrender should be ordered and refused the application.