The High Court has consented to five Polish requests to prosecute a man who had previously been surrendered to Poland, rejecting his objections over prison conditions and the rule of specialty.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly considered five of seven requests received after the man’s surrender. The court left the fourth request for further consideration because the parties needed to make additional inquiries about section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The seventh had arrived recently, and the man’s solicitor needed time to take instructions.
The man had been surrendered under four European arrest warrants in an order made on 6 October 2014. Two warrants concerned prosecution; two sought execution of separate six-month prison sentences. The five requests covered allegations of theft, fraud and deception offences committed before surrender, and requests concerning prosecution, penalties or execution of sentences.
He objected to further prosecution or punishment. He argued that prison conditions in Poland, including overcrowding, poor hygiene, limited medical care and repeated transfers, created a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The judge found the complaints and supporting reports did not establish the required risk. She said the transfers appeared connected to court appearances and had a legitimate purpose; the evidence about their effects and other conditions did not meet the relevant threshold.
The man also argued that Polish proceedings had breached the rule of specialty, which limits prosecution or punishment after surrender for earlier offences without the required consent. The judge said the evidence did not establish that a sentence had been served for another matter; at most, one sentence appeared to have been repealed and proceedings discontinued. She interpreted section 22(7) and (8) as allowing consent for proceedings, a penalty, or proceedings to execute a sentence, subject to the protections in Part 3 of the Act.
The judge also considered whether prosecution and sentencing could proceed before consent, provided no measure restricting liberty was applied. She found no evidence that the Polish proceedings had restricted the man’s liberty. The court concluded there were no grounds to refuse the five requests on the basis of Part 3 or an actual or prospective breach of the rule of specialty, and granted consent for the first, second, third, fifth and sixth requests. The ruling did not determine the fourth or seventh requests.