[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 >> Semen v Legnica District Court Poland [2011] EWHC 1960 (Admin) (07 July 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/1960.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 1960 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		7 July 2011

1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This case highlights the problems which are faced by Poles who have committed crimes, who then come to this country, embark upon their family life and then face extradition proceedings.
2. The appellant appeals against the order of District Judge Tubbs made on 26 March 2011 at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, whereby she ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland on a mixed warrant. Part of the warrant requires him to serve a sentence of 6 months for an offence of handling stolen goods committed in 2000 and imposed in June 2001, all of which remains to be served. The accusation component relates to a further offence of handling stolen goods in the same location in Poland, in 2003.
3. The appellant has been in this country for a number of years. His presence here has not been entirely without incident. He has been convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom and was sent to prison. He was released on 12 January 2011 to arrest under the European arrest warrant.
4. The case was adjourned and it was indicated, as is the case, that Article 8 would be the issue. The case was heard on 20 April 2011 and a judgment given on 26 May 2011. The Article 8 point raised was this: it was said that the judge found, accepting the evidence of the appellant, that the appellant and his partner had lived in the UK since 2005.

"They had three children aged four years, two years and seven months, all of whom were born in this country. The appellant is an atheist and so will not marry his partner in a church ceremony, and this causes great difficulty for her and the children with her remaining family in Poland. His partner's parents are in the UK. Her mother, however, is terminally ill with ovarian cancer and her father is looking after her.

"Having seen and heard Marzena Skuratowicz give her evidence, I accept that she will be unable to go to Poland and take the children with her if the appellant is extradited."

5. The appellant's partner is as I understand it a Catholic, and certainly her family are Catholics.
6. The submission made very succinctly by Mr Atlee on behalf of the appellant is that the consequence of extradition would, on the findings of the district judge, mean that the appellant would be separated from his partner and their three young children. It is suggested that the fact of that separation constitutes the sort of quite exceptionally compelling features that mean extradition would be disproportionate.
7. It is not significant, in my judgment, that the cause of the partner being unable to go to Poland is due to a combination of problems with her remaining family in Poland because they are not married, or because she is helping to look after her mother who is dying in this country. The effect of extradition will be that the father would be separated from partner and children. But that is the regrettable consequence of crimes being committed which need to be punished, and in this case tried as well. Separation from family of this order is really of no real significance when it comes to the weighing exercise required for Article 8 purposes in extradition cases.
8. It is a long way below what is envisaged by Norris and very, very different on its facts from HH, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWHC 1145 (Admin), in which, notwithstanding the quite severe consequences for the children, both parents were extradited to Italy, and it was concluded that that extradition was not disproportionate.
9. Accordingly, the appeal in relation to Article 8 fails and this appeal is dismissed.
10. Thank you, Mr Atlee.
11. MR ATLEE: My Lord, I do not think it is necessary for me to apply for Legal Aid taxation, as it appears that the cost of this takes the view that it is inherent in the granting of the representation order, but just in case that is mistaken, my Lord, could I ask for such an order?
12. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Yes, Legal Aid taxation, if that is the right formula.
13. MR ATLEE: I am obliged.