Man who challenged extradition to Poland on medical grounds loses appeal

The High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court upheld the decision of the sheriff to order the appellant’s extradition to the Republic of Poland in terms of section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Lord Menzies, Lord Bracadale and Lord Turnbull heard that the first and principal ground of appeal was that the appellant Lech Gryc suffered from a medical condition for which he was receiving treatment in Scotland and that if he were to be extradited to Poland he would miss appointments and/or the opportunity of surgery.

Although the judges had before them the medical records of the appellant which were lodged in the court below, no up to date medical reports or records were placed before the court.

In particular, there was nothing before the judge to suggest that the appellant suffers from a medical condition which is not capable of being treated by the Polish prison authorities.

Refusing the appeal, the judges observed that the threshold for refusing to extradite a person to a member state of the European Union on medical grounds was “a high one”.

As the appeal court observed in Agnieszka Jantos v The Lord Advocate (2015) there is “a strong but rebuttable presumption” that member states of the European Union will not infringe the Convention rights of persons, and that a “high threshold” must be reached in order to satisfy the court that a requested person’s physical condition is such that it would be “oppressive” to extradite that person.

The judges were also referred to the observations of the appeal court in the case of Wlodarczyk v The Lord Advocate (2012), in which it was said that, as a generality in cases involving EAWs, it is assumed that the requesting state has the facilities and “will provide necessary medical treatment for prisoners”.

“That case, of course, was concerned with the treatment of mental illness but the same considerations apply to a case involving physical conditions”, the judges added.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Menzies said: “There is no material before us to rebut the presumption to which we have referred. On the materials before us we cannot be satisfied that it would be oppressive to extradite the appellant to Poland.

“We have considered carefully the report prepared for this court by the sheriff but we can find no error of law in his reasoning, nor in his disposal. This appeal must therefore be refused.”

In addition, the appellant asserted that he had been advised that he will not be allowed the opportunity to appeal against his Polish conviction in absence, nor will he have the right to have his case re-examined.

However, the judges noted that it was clearly stated in the European Arrest Warrant that when served the decision, the person concerned will be “clearly informed about his/her right for a re-examination of the case or for an appeal”.

Therefore, the judges did not consider that there was any substance to the appellant’s submission.