[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Szumski v District Court In Gorzow Wielkopolski, Poland [2012] EWHC 3875 (Admin) (19 December 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/3875.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 3875 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		19 December 2012

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an appeal from a decision of District Judge Nicholas Evans on 24 October that the appellant should be extradited to Poland. At the hearing no challenges to extradition were raised. The appellant is sought under a warrant which was issued in February 2012. It refers to the appellant having been convicted in April 2011 of an offence of robbery which had been committed early the previous year. That robbery involved the use of an imitation firearm. The details of the warrant state that the appellant, acting jointly with others, threatened to kill the shop assistant and forced the shop assistant to hand over something like £500. The sentence was 3 years.
2. In a proof of evidence taken after the hearing, the appellant explains how he came to this country and how he was working as a street cleaner for Camden Council. At some time when he was doing that in 2011 he suffered an injury and was taken to hospital. He says in his proof that as a consequence he suffers severe headaches, his vision is blurred and he lost his employment as a result. He has now taken proceedings for damages for personal injury.
3. Ms Bhatt has come into this case at the eleventh hour. She explains that she had not yet been able to take full instructions from the appellant. She abandons the issues of prison conditions and his conviction in his absence which the appellant advanced in the appeal documents which he filed himself. She seeks an adjournment. She submits that the evidence now before me discloses that the appellant was supposed to have a medical examination but has not done so. She contends that she should be able to explore fully the nature of the medical injury and its implications for the appellant's extradition.
4. In my view, notwithstanding the cogent way she has put the submission, there is no basis for an adjournment and there is no basis for an appeal. Even were the appellant to suffer from medical problems as a result of this industrial injury, he can obtain medical care in Poland. The threshold for a human rights claim because of medical conditions is very high. Moreover, the appellant's lawyers can pursue his personal injury claim on his instructions, which can be given from Poland by modern means of communication. On that basis, I dismiss the appeal.
5. MS BHATT: My Lord, his appeal on the basis of whether he was convicted in his absence would also need to be dismissed, as he raised that in his statement.
6. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes, I think I said that. I will ensure that when I receive the transcript.
7. MS BHATT: I would be grateful for a costs assessment order as well.
8. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes. Thank you very much.