[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Oraczko v District Court in Krakow [2008] EWHC 904 (Admin) (09 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/904.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 904 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE TREACY
____________________
BOGUSLAW ORACZKO | Claimant | |
v | ||
DISTRICT COURT IN KRAKOW | Defendant |
____________________
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)
Rachel Scott (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"'Unjust' I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trial itself, 'oppressive' as directed to hardship to the accused resulting from changes in his circumstances that have occurred during the period to be taken into consideration; but there is room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases where to return him would not be fair. Delay in the commencement of conduct of extradition proceedings which is brought about by the accused himself by fleeing the country, concealing his whereabouts or evading arrest cannot, in my view, be relied upon as a ground for holding it to be either unjust or oppressive to return him. Any difficulties that he may encounter in the conduct of his defence in consequence of the delay due to such causes are of his own choice and making. Save in the most exceptional circumstances it would be neither unjust nor oppressive that he should be required to accept them."
There is a similar passage in Lord Keith's judgment in the same case at page 787. The District Judge then held that there were no exceptional circumstances here and he concluded that extradition was not barred.
"This places the original issues very nearly at large before us, but with the obvious restrictions, first, that this court must consider the District Judge's reasons with great care in order to decide whether it differs from her and, secondly, that her fact-findings, at least where she has heard evidence, should ordinarily be respected in their entirety."
Ms Scott submits that the District Judge's finding of fact here was one properly open to him on the evidence, including the oral testimony of the appellant himself, and since the District Judge had heard the appellant, this court should be slow to interfere with that finding.