CO/4103/2014 
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4086 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday, 12 November 2014
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between: 
LUBARSKI 
Appellant

v 

REGIONAL COURT IN BYDGOSZCZ POLAND 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)  
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY  
Tel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424 
E‑mail: mlsukclient@merrillcorp.com 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr J Attlee (instructed by Attlee Chung Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms S Townshend (instructed by CPS Extradition) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE OUSELEY:  This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates' Court who, on 27 August 2014, ordered this Appellant's extradition to Poland on a conviction warrant to serve the balance of a 4 year 6 month sentence imposed for large scale drug trafficking.  There are 2 years 10 months and 24 days left.  
2.	The offending behaviour took place in the period 2000 to 2002, but it involved participation in very substantial drug trafficking, for example, the importation of 48 kilos of cocaine and 17 kilos of amphetamines.  The gang necessitated a very considerable investigation.  The trial involved 35 defendants facing 111 offences with a very substantial volume of documentation.  
3.	The trial was underway on 16 February 2010.  The Appellant turned up for trial on that day knowing that, so far as he was concerned, the trial would continue on 17 December 2010.  He chose not to attend.  The matter was adjourned until 23 December.  Again, the Appellant did not appear.  
4.	He instructed his lawyer to apply for sentence to be postponed.  He had been told that he was due to appear on 29 December 2012.  He did not, however, appear.  He decided that he would leave Poland instead.  He did so fully aware of the fact that he was to be sentenced.  He is, as the judge found, therefore, a fugitive from justice.  
5.	It is submitted that there are two points, in reality, that go to an Article 8 point.  I say two points, because although Mr Attlee on the Appellant's behalf raises the question of delay, he graciously accepts that it is not culpable on the part of the prosecutor.  The reality is that it is not delay at all.  They were faced with the prosecution of a conspiracy involving many defendants and a vast amount of material.  Any delay after that is due to the Appellant's desire to make himself as unavailable as possible for the normal proceedings that take place.  
6.	He has had, it is true, some two years plus in the United Kingdom since he came in July 2012 with his family.  His family consists of his wife, their young child and a stepchild.  But there is nothing in their circumstances which shows this to be a disproportionate extradition request.  The 16 year old stepson would be in a position to help look after the daughter.  There would be, of course, hardship, but nothing of the sort which engages Article 8.  
7.	I should add that it may be that one reason for delay was also the periods of imprisonment that this drug dealer was serving in Germany, it appears, for drug dealing.  
8.	The point which Mr Attlee makes, with the support of a GP report not before the District Judge, is that because the Appellant was an informant, which explains perhaps why the sentence was not very much greater than it was, he has a fear, as to which he has given some evidence that it has an objective basis, that he and his family are at risk of reprisal from those who may feel that he has acted inappropriately for a drug dealer.  
9.	That is not a matter which can sensibly be pursued simply on those submissions, particularly in the light, as the District Judge found, of the decision of this court in Cronti.  
10.	Mr Attlee relies upon the new report from the GP to say that even to the extent that the fears are not well‑founded, they are nonetheless real fears to the Appellant, morbid fears that he and he and his family will be harmed.  So disturbing is that in his mental condition that, taking all other factors, the Article 8 threshold is breached by extradition.  
11.	The GP's letter, and it is only with respect a GP's letter, relies upon the Appellant's account of events.  He has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression for which he receives fairly standard anti‑depressant drugs and sleeping tablets.  It is the Appellant's description that his own life is at risk from those threats and over the last few months, he has had difficulty controlling anxiety, low mood and has suffered suicidal thoughts.  The doctor says, in his opinion, the Appellant genuinely suffers from anxiety and depression.  There is a risk of suicide if he was sent back to Poland and that his life would be at risk from suicide under these circumstances.  
12.	I have no difficulty accepting that somebody suffers in these circumstances from anxiety and depression, but in order for that to constitute a weighty Article 8 consideration, the evidence has to be expert, rather than that from a GP.  It has to be specific and measured against the circumstances in the case, which would include the ability of the Polish authorities to deal with morbid, but unreal, as well as real risks.  
With respect to Mr Attlee, this appeal is doomed.  I dismiss it.  
13.	MR JUSTICE OUSELEY:  Thank you, Mr Attlee. 
14.	MR ATTLEE:  My Lord, I do not think it is necessary to apply for the usual order, but in case it is, may I? 
15.	MR JUSTICE OUSELEY:  The usual order is becoming rarer and rarer.  But if you need the usual order for detailed assessment, that you may have. 
16.	MR ATTLEE:  I am obliged, my Lord.