Case No. CO/13289/2010 
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 993 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Date: Tuesday, 29th March 2011
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MACHURA 
Claimant

v 

JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF POLAND 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in Person  
Mr D Sternberg (instructed by Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE FOSKETT:  In 2003 the appellant was sentenced to serve a 1‑year prison sentence in Poland in respect of an offence of obtaining services by deception.
2.	It related to an offence committed in October 1999.  The European Arrest Warrant appears  to indicate that the appellant has not served any part of that sentence.  However, he says that he has served some of that sentence and that there are only about two‑and‑a‑half months still to serve.
3.	I am unable to say whether that is correct or not but if it is, it is a matter that he will be able to take up and pursue with the Polish authorities, on his return to Poland.
4.	The European Arrest Warrant to which I have referred was issued in March 2010 and it indicates that it was this sentence in respect of which his extradition was sought.
5.	The appellant was arrested pursuant to the warrant, when he was found at Gatwick Airport.  He appeared at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 20th December 2010 and then again 2 days later.  The matter was postponed I understand to try to clarify whether he was the subject of an another arrest warrant in Scotland.  However, that matter was clarified and the only matter that he appeared before Magistrates' Court for was the matter relating to the sentence for the offence committed in October 1999.
6.	When he appeared before the District Judge, he was represented by an experienced extradition solicitor.  He did not consent to extradition but I am told, and it certainly appears from the documents that I have seen, that the matter proceeded on an uncontested basis.  The District Judge ordered the appellant's extradition.
7.	On 29th December 2010, acting in person, the appellant lodged a notice of appeal, to which was attached a handwritten document, which drew attention to the fact that he had been seriously ill for about 9 weeks in hospital following, as I understand it, a serious accident involving a bus as a result of which both his legs were broken and other injuries were sustained.  In that handwritten document he also mentioned his epilepsy and he suggested that his physical and psychological condition was not good enough to enable him to return to Poland.  It is right to say that none of this was raised before the District Judge and, strictly speaking, the matter cannot now be raised before me.
8.	However, I do not propose to deal with this appeal on a technical basis.  It seems fairer that I should try to deal with it on the basis of the matters that have been put before me.  I have been reminded, and it is entirely correct to say, that the threshold that needs to be achieved by someone such as the appellant, who seeks to avoid extradition by reason of his physical or mental condition, is a high one and difficult to surmount.
9.	Whilst of course anyone would sympathize with someone who has suffered a serious accident and who has the additional problem of epilepsy, it cannot be said that either of those two matters are particularly exceptional features of ill‑health or injury, such that they could not be dealt with in a country such as Poland.  It is necessary to look for something exceptionally serious in someone's physical or mental condition before it is possible to interfere with a proposed extradition.  I do not see anything in the circumstances of this case to suggest that that very high threshold has been met.  I do not think that I could possibly conclude that the physical difficulties faced by the appellant cannot be dealt with within the prison estate in Poland and accordingly I see no basis for his extradition being prevented by reason of those kind of issues.
10.	He has suggested that he would be able to pay off the debt which gave rise to the conviction in the first place.  As I have endeavoured to explain during the course of the proceedings, that is something that I have no control over.  If it is correct that it can be paid and if it is correct that that may have some influence on the authorities, then that is a matter that he will be able to take up with the authorities on his return to Poland.
11.	However, for those reasons, briefly expressed, I can see no grounds for allowing this appeal and accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.
12.	I am grateful to you madam for your assistance this afternoon, thank you very much, and for the officers for bringing the appellant along.  That does conclude the hearing this afternoon.