[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 >> Badzo v District Court In Rokycany Czech Republic [2013] EWHC 1331 (Admin) (01 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1331.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1331 (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
		01 May 2013

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: A conviction European Arrest Warrant was issued by a judge of the District Court at Rokycany in Czech Republic on 25 March 2011. It was certified by SOCA on 26 May 2011. The appellant was arrested on 21 December 2012. His extradition was ordered three and a half months later by District Judge Coleman on 12 April 2013. His extradition was sought to serve an 8½ year term of imprisonment imposed at the District Court at Rokycany on 29 May for:

1. A robbery committed on 4 May 2006 in Rokycany.

2. Thefts committed on 4 May and 17 June 2006 in Rokycany.

4. The theft of a mobile telephone on 14 June 2006 in Bilsen.

2. Those offences were committed whilst he was "on parole", what we would call license, for four years, having been released from prison on 9 January 2006 whilst still subject to the remaining term of a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, 3 months, imposed by the District Court in Bilsen on 6 August 2004 for an offence of robbery committed on 24 February 2004. He was categorised under Czech law as an "extremely dangerous recidivist". Hence, no doubt, the severe sentence imposed for the offences to which I have referred.
3. The grounds of appeal, settled by the appellant personally, state:

"The chief of police from my home town of Rokycany has a personal vendetta against me due to the fact that I borrowed a large sum of money from him which I cannot pay back. I have received death threats because of this. I will be killed or tortured by him or his associates. I have mental health issues which have not been addressed and my rights will be breached. If a vulnerable person like me is extradited to the Czech Republic I do not agree with my recent psychiatric see evaluation because it was conducted over videolink with poor visual and audio quality. I have lived in the UK since 2009 and I am settled here. Thank you."

Those grounds repeat the arguments advanced before the District Judge and rejected by him. He said of the first ground that he accepted that he was apprehensive about returning:

"... But I find his evidence about the corrupt police officer and his fear of vengeance far harder to believe in its entirety. It is certainly not of a quality which reaches the standard required to make out a case under Article 3. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me at all to show that the Czech Republic will not comply with its Convention obligations to protect Mr Badzo."

4. Mr Smith who appears for the appellant today frankly and correctly accepts that that ground of appeal is without merit; it is for the Czech Republic to protect its citizens against the risk of crime committed by others of its citizens not the United Kingdom.
5. Mr Smith also accepts that on the material which the District Judge had there is insufficient to justify the conclusion urged upon her that the risk the appellant will commit suicide is so high that his extradition would be barred. Mr Smith accepts that the test, a stringent one, is that laid out by the Divisional Court by Aikens LJ in Turner v USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (28) - observations that are by now well known to those who practise in this field which I do not therefore need to set out.
6. He also accepts that in cases in which a suicide risk is raised the obligation is on the appellant and on those instructed by him to obtain necessary evidence to support the contention and to present it to the District Judge and not on appeal to seek further psychiatric evidence differing from or contradicting that placed before the District Judge. There was evidence here before the District Judge which persuaded him to reject the proposition that the risk of suicide was sufficiently high to prevent extradition:

"The evidence in this case falls far short of the standard required to prevent immediate extradition. Mr Badzo is probably depressed at the prospect of return and is desperate to avoid it. His threat of suicide is clear enough, but it is equally clear that he is not mentally ill and has the capacity to resist the impulse to kill himself. No doubt the Czech authorities will note the potential problem and the threat made. There is no evidence to suggest that they will not comply with their international obligations."

Those observations were made having considered the report of Dr Baird of 24 March 2013. Dr Baird is an appropriately qualified consultant in forensic psychiatry. He did not have available to him prison or medical records for the appellant - as far as prison records are concerned an omission that is perhaps surprising. But as far as medical records are concerned it is unsurprising because the appellant has lived most of his life in the Czech Republic.

7. Dr Baird was however able to conclude on the basis of what he had learnt from and about the appellant that he did not suffer from a mental disorder and was presently mentally and physically well. He noted that he had a history of heroin and cocaine abuse but had been drug free for a year. Mr Smith does not dispute that at present. The appellant is mentally and physically well in prison. Dr Baird's properly cautious view about the suicide risk is expressed in paragraph 37 of his report.

"My view is that Jan Badzo's mental health could deteriorate should he be extradited to the Czech Republic and I think that his risk of self-harm could increase. In my clinical opinion it is difficult to accurately predict his risk of future suicide. But my view is that his threat of suicide should be taken seriously. His risk could rapidly change and increase should he receive adverse news and I would therefore recommend that he receive support and is monitored throughout the extradition hearing and afterwards should the court agree to uphold the extradition warrant."

On the basis of that evidence it is plain that the suicide risk posed by the appellant does not reach the level at which the court might, let alone should, intervene to prevent extradition. What Dr Baird was saying was that what was at present a low risk might well increase in response to adverse news about the extradition process. But the steps which he recommended should be taken to deal with the risk was not the abandonment of extradition but:

"...That he receives support and is monitored throughout the extradition hearing and afterwards should the court agree to uphold the extradition warrant."

In other words, what in Dr Baird's opinion was required, was no more than routine monitoring of a man who claimed to pose a suicide risk but who had not, during his time in custody in the United Kingdom, showed any sign of mental or physical illness, still less attempted even by way of demonstration to take steps against his own life.

8. Mr Smith submits that I should adjourn the hearing of this appeal to permit the very experienced and responsible firm who instruct him to obtain a further opinion either from Dr Baird or from another psychiatrist who will have seen at least the UK records available and will have had the opportunity of conducting a face-to-face interview with the appellant.
9. I accept that this is not expert shopping and is not at all an abuse of the process of court as sometimes happens. But nothing of what I have seen and read, and material to which I have referred, leads me to believe that even if a further psychiatric enquiry were to be undertaken, the condition of the appellant would be found to be such as to pose a high risk that he would take his own life, still less any risk that he would be unable to resist the temptation to do so. Accordingly, and for those reasons, I see no good reason to adjourn the hearing of this appeal and I dismiss it.
10. MR SMITH: There is an application for a legal assessment order.
11. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes, granted.
12. MR SMITH: Thank you very much.
13. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Thank you for your help.