The High Court ordered Marcin Sawczuk’s surrender to the Polish authorities under three European Arrest Warrants, rejecting his claim that prison conditions in Poland created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
In a judgment delivered on 4 February 2011, Mr Justice John Edwards said the warrants had been endorsed for execution and that the court was satisfied Sawczuk was the person named in each. The court said no issue arose over correspondence, minimum gravity or the form of the warrants. The question before it was whether surrender was prohibited by the European Arrest Warrant Act or the governing framework decision.
Sawczuk objected under section 37 of the 2003 Act, relying on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In an affidavit sworn in November 2010, he described past imprisonment in Klodzko, Dzierzoniok and Pilawa. He said cells had been overcrowded, conditions unhealthy, showers limited to once a week, food insufficient and recreation scarce. He said he feared being subjected to that regime again if surrendered. No further evidence was called on his behalf.
The Minister relied on three letters received from Polish authorities. The Polish Ministry of Justice said the Convention was binding in Poland and cited nationwide prison population figures of 97.8% in an October letter and 97.3% in a December letter. A letter from the Circuit Law Court of Świdnica disputed Sawczuk’s account and described statutory requirements for cell space, food, hygiene and prisoners’ rights. The High Court admitted the additional information, holding that it could consider it without direct evidence, while noting its hearsay character could affect the weight given to it.
Applying the approach in the Supreme Court’s decision in *Minister for Justice v Rettinger*, the High Court said Sawczuk had not shown substantial grounds for believing surrender would expose him to a real risk of Article 3 treatment. His account concerned conditions experienced “a considerable time ago,” and he had provided no current evidence or independent material about conditions in Poland. Nor was there evidence that the three prisons he named reflected present conditions in all, or most, Polish prisons.
The judge said the Polish material was detailed, current and traceable to publicly available data. Although it came from interested parties, the court had no reason to doubt its accuracy and attached considerable weight to it. The court therefore rejected the objection and ordered surrender under section 16. The ruling addresses the Article 3 objection; the judgment records no separate finding about the respondent’s guilt or the sentences underlying the warrants.