Lech Gryc v. The Lord Advocate [2017] HCJAC 1

Extradition Appeal:- On 22 September 2016, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the sheriff ordered the extradition of the appellant to Poland in terms of section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. Here the appellant appealed against that decision on two grounds:- (1) that the appellant suffered from a medical condition which resulted in him receiving treatment in Scotland and if he was extradited he would miss out on further medical treatment and surgery; and (2) that the appellant alleges that he has been advised that he will not be allowed the opportunity to appeal against his Polish conviction in absence or have the right to have his case re‑examined. In relation to the first ground of appeal the court had regard to the medical records of the appellant which were lodged in court and had been considered by the sheriff. No additional material was placed before the high court. The court noted that there was nothing within the medical records which suggested that the appellant suffered from a medical condition that could not be treated medically by the Polish prison authorities. The court reiterated that the threshold for a member state to refuse to extradite a person to another member state of the European Union on medical grounds was a high one as there is a strong, but rebuttable, presumption that member states of the European Union will not infringe the Convention rights of persons. The court stated that there is an assumption that basic standards of care will be provided by member states both in relation to the treatment of mental illness and a case involving physical conditions like the present. It would be necessary for the appellant to demonstrate that due to his physical condition it would be oppressive to extradite him and the onus was on the appellant to demonstrate that. The court did not consider that the appellant had shown such oppression here and this ground of appeal was refused. In relation to the second ground of appeal, the court had regard to the specific terms of the European Arrest Warrant which stated that the appellant would have an opportunity for his case to be re-examined and which could result in a reversal or change of the original decision and this ground of appeal was also refused.