[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 >> Andrzejewski v Regional Court In Czestochowa [2012] EWHC 1310 (Admin) (02 May 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1310.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1310 (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
		2 May 2012

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: By a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued by the Regional Court of Czestochowa on 24 November 2011, the extradition of the appellant was sought to serve a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment imposed by the District Court of Czestochowa on 27 November 2002 for an offence of robbery committed on 2 September 2000. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 16 January 2012. I do not know the date upon which the appellant was arrested, but at a barely contested extradition hearing on 20 February 2012, District Judge Snow ordered his extradition. Two issues were raised on which the district judge made the following findings: the appellant had been convicted in his presence, and the sentence of imprisonment had not been suspended.
2. In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant relied upon a ground not raised before the District Judge, that he had a pregnant girlfriend and a 9 1/2-year-old daughter. Evidence to support that ground was required. None was put in; none has been put in in this appeal. Applying Fenyvesi, it is not a ground which I would give him permission to raise on appeal for the first time. But on 8 March, Calvert-Smith J adjourned the appeal to permit the appellant to submit perfected grounds of appeal. The order, sealed on 13 March 2012, was in the following terms:

"It is further ordered that within 21 days of today the Appellant is to submit perfected grounds of appeal."

He has not done so. He was then represented by counsel, but does not appear today.

3. Under CPR 3.4(2)(c), I have power to strike out a statement of case in the event of the failure to comply with a rule, practice or court order. CPR 52.9 makes it clear that a similar power exists in relation to a Notice of Appeal in an appeal court, which for this purpose I am.
4. It is plain to me from the history which I have briefly recited that this appellant does not intend to take this appeal seriously, by raising for the first time the ground upon which he wishes to pursue his resistance to extradition only on appeal. Then, by failing to comply with a clear order requiring him to submit perfected grounds of appeal within 21 days, he has demonstrated that he does not intend to participate constructively in this litigation. The only proportionate reaction to that state of affairs is to strike out his appeal. Because this is an extradition appeal, to set time running, I must dismiss it as well, which I do.
5. MS HINTON: My Lord, forgive me. May I clarify simply one point and that is this: the district judge, regarding the issue of the suspended sentence, whether one had been imposed or not, did not make any findings in relation to that issue. My reference for that is the notes of his judgment. This was an uncontested hearing where no issues were raised. My Lord, forgive me for raising it, it is simply a matter of clarification.
6. MR JUSTICE MITTING: No, not at all. If I have made a mistake it should be corrected. You are quite right. What the district judge said was that he had made representations that a suspended sentence had been imposed and incorrectly activated, but did not raise this as an issue.
7. MS HINTON: My Lord, I am grateful.
8. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes. Thank you for pointing that out.