Case No. CO/7259/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3045 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 
 
Date: Friday 5 October 2012 
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SZALANSKI 
Claimant 
v 

REGIONAL COURT IN SWIDNICA, POLAND 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in person assisted by an interpreter Mr Sieciechowicz

Miss Katherine Tyler (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T

1.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  This is an appeal against an order made by the district judge that the appellant should be returned to Poland in order to face charges of robbery committed in December 2007 and to serve the balance amounting to something in the order of three years and four months of sentences imposed for the commission of a number of other offences including robbery, theft and drink driving.  
2.	The claimant arrived in this country in 2009, he accepts, as he put it, partly to avoid the criminal process in Poland and partly no doubt because of employment difficulties in Poland and the wish to obtain employment and look after his wife and any family that he might have here.  He now does have a family in the sense that a son was born in May 2011.  As he says, he is the only provider for his family here and they will suffer if he has to return to Poland.  He recognises ‑ indeed, it is inevitable that he must recognise ‑ that the court is not going to be over‑sympathetic to those who come to this country deliberately to avoid the consequences of activities in their native country and then complain that it is hard for their family if they are to be returned.  Of course the court will take into account hardship to family and will weigh it in the balance but, generally speaking, it will not be possible to pray that in aid in order to avoid a proper return to face the criminal proceedings in the native country.  
3.	That is the position here.  Harsh though it is, difficult though it will be regrettably for the wife and child, nonetheless it is insufficiently serious hardship to justify a decision that to return would be disproportionate.  
4.	The claimant tells me that he is made an asylum claim based on the harshness of prison conditions in Poland.  That claim means that until it is determined he cannot in fact be extradited because of Section 39 of the 2003 Act.  However it is clear to me that the claim is one which stands very little chance of success and almost certainly ought to be certified when refused.  However that is a matter not for me but for the Home Office.  All I do is to dismiss his appeal.  The question of return will await the asylum decision.  It means you will not be returned until the asylum claim is dealt with by the Home Office.  As it is, the appeal has been dismissed.
5.	THE CLAIMANT:  Yes, sir.