Case No. CO/2178/2011 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3038 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2012
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ROZANSKI 
Claimant

v 

REGIONAL COURT 3 PENAL DEPARTMENT POLAND 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented  

Mr Benjamin Keith (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  On 4th March 2011 District Judge Purdy ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland.  His extradition was requested by a European Arrest Warrant issued on 26th October 2010, certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 29th October 2010, to serve a sentence of six months and 25 days' imprisonment in Poland in relation to matters of theft and burglary in respect of which he had been convicted.  Poland is a category one territory to which Part 1 of the Act applies.  
2.	The appeal has been delayed because a question arose regarding the validity of the notice of appeal.  That question was resolved against the appellant in the Divisional Court.  However, the matter went to the Supreme Court, see [2012] UKSC 20.  In the Supreme Court the appellant was successful and the appeal were remitted here for determination.
3.	This appeal was listed at 10.30 this morning.  Mr Rozanski (the appellant) did not attend.  I put the matter back until 12.30 having been told by Mr Keith, who appears for the respondent, that Mr Rozanski lives in Nottingham.  
4.	On 16th October 2012 Mr Rozanski wrote to the court to say that he no longer wished to be represented by the solicitors then on record.  It appears that there had been some disagreement.  In terms he said: "I wish to represent myself".  The position is that the notice of hearing was, as I understand it, sent to his solicitors whilst they were still on the record.  That occurred before the note from the appellant dated 16th October to which I have referred.  It is apparent therefore that he is on notice as to this hearing.  In those circumstances I have proceeded in his absence.
5.	The grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are these:  
"I would like to stay in the UK prison because: my family lives here, and I want to have a contact and see them, my girlfriend and our son.  Remain 18 days to half sentence (I was in prison for almost six months), and I could leave prison after that time.  If I go to Poland I lose my permanent job.  My girlfriend does not work and will be in very difficult situation, if I go to Poland.  
I came to England over 5 years ago to change my life and I did it.  I didn't want to avoid of responsibility.  
Prisons in Poland are in very bad condition (too many prisoners in cell).  I want to spend time in prison like a human, that's why I want to stay here."
6.	Put in legal terms the appellant seeks to resist extradition on two grounds.  First, he relies upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of his immediate family's presence in the United Kingdom.  Secondly, he relies upon Article 3 of the Convention on the basis of prison conditions in Poland.  Neither point was taken before the District Judge.  Indeed the hearing was uncontested.  However, no point is taken against the appellant on that account. 
Article 3 
7.	A large number of appeals have been pursued in extradition cases alleging very poor prison conditions in Poland.  No evidence has been provided by the appellant concerning this issue.  On 17th August 2012 the President of the Queen's Bench Division gave judgment in six cases concerning prison conditions in Poland, see Krolik and others v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland, [2012] EWHC 2357 Admin.  He identified a large number of previous appeals in both England and Scotland where an argument under Article 3 in relation to prison conditions in Poland had failed.  In the absence of new evidence changing the factual basis upon which such appeals have failed in the past, this ground of appeal is hopeless.  Krolik sets out the steps necessary to enable an appellant to run Article 3 prison conditions arguments in connection with Poland on new evidence in this court, see in particular paragraph 10 of the judgment.  Nothing of the sort has been done in this appeal.  There is no merit in this ground.  
Article 8 
8.	The appellant suggests that he has a very short period of time left to serve of his sentence.  He adverts to the difficulties which his girlfriend might encounter if he were unable temporarily to support her.  He suggests that he will lose his job if he returns to Poland.  
9.	It is undoubtedly the case that Article 8 of the Convention can operate to prevent extradition.  The Supreme Court considered the circumstances in Norris v The Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9.  Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers gave a judgment with which all members of the court agreed.  He accepted that Article 8 would very often fall to be considered in extradition cases, but noted at paragraph 51 of his judgment that the public interest in extradition weighs "very heavily indeed".  At paragraph 56 he said that, "The reality is that only if some quite exceptionally compelling feature, or combination of features, is present that interference with family life consequent upon extradition will be other than proportionate... " (see also paragraph 62 of Lord Phillips' judgment).
10.	The very brief recital by the appellant of the problems which extradition will cause him, in my judgment come nowhere near the threshold identified by the Supreme Court as a prerequisite to questioning the proportionality of the extradition by reference to Article 8.  For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed.