Dobrowolska v Regional Court Warsaw Poland [2012] EWHC 2803 (Admin)
[1]MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: This appellant appeals against an order for extradition following a European Arrest Warrant issued on 2 September 2011, a conviction warrant, that she should be return to Poland to serve the entirety of an eight month sentence imposed in October 2003. There is also another European Arrest Warrant issued by another court in Poland. That is to serve a sentence of two years' imprisonment in respect of three offences of theft.[2]At the hearing before Rose DJ on 16 January 2012, no representations were made against one of the extradition warrants. Representations were made in relation to the other, but they are not material in that they form no part of the grounds of appeal.[3]The grounds of appeal are that the extradition should not be ordered as it will amount to a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those grounds were not put before the district judge, but in the light of what the Appellant has told me today, I intend to deal with the matters. Her case before me has been that she did instruct her solicitors in relation to those matters, but they did not argue them on her behalf. For all I know, that may be right, because the lawyers may have taken the view that, in reality, they could not amount to a sufficient ground to contest extradition. I will consider those grounds despite the fact they were not raised on a previous occasion. That seems to me to be the fairest thing to do.[4]What the Appellant says is that the reason for not wishing to go back is that she came to an agreement with the police in Poland whereby she provided information to them in relation to significant criminals and their activities in Poland. She says that the fact that she had provided this information got out to the people about whom the information was given. As a result, she has received threats and members of her family have been assaulted. She is raising before the court threats and danger that she receives from non-state agents.[5]This is not an unusual situation which can occur in any country, including this country. There is, in those circumstances, a heavy duty on the police to ensure the safety of the person who has given the information. I have no reason to suppose and no evidence to suppose that if, in Poland, this appellant gives information that the threats have been made to the police in Poland that they will not take appropriate steps to protect her from any danger that she may be in.[6]In accordance with established principles, in those circumstances, balancing out the Article 2 and 3 rights, there is no reason to suppose that there will be a breach of those articles if the police in Poland are informed of the situation, as they should be. Accordingly, the appeal has to be dismissed.