CO/14046/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 533 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday, 7 February 2013
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
 
KEPINSKI 
Appellant

v 

CIRCUIT COURT IN KATOWICE POLAND 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms A Bright (instructed by Steel & Shamash) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr A Payter (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Evans, given on Christmas Eve last year, ordering the appellant's removal to Poland to serve sentences of imprisonment for two offences of drug trafficking and drug supply.  The total sentence involved seems to have been something in the order of 18 months.  
2.	The appellant raised no issues in opposition to his extradition before the district judge, but did not consent.  In his Notice of Appeal, he states as his grounds of appeal that he has a claim here because he was apparently convicted of an ABH, but he says that he served longer than he should have done in prison and wishes compensation.  That is, of course, no conceivable basis for resisting extradition.  
3.	Ms Bright has helpfully attended and has made it clear that she accepts, as indeed is clearly the position, that there is no proper bar to removal which has been raised or could be raised on the appellant's behalf.  In those circumstances, this appeal must be dismissed.  
4.	Ms Bright asks the court to include in part of the order that the appellant had served 47 days in custody in connection with this warrant.  I gather from Mr Payter that the practice is for SOCA to inform the Polish authorities (indeed any requesting state's authorities) of the length of time that a requested person has served in custody in connection with the EAW proceedings in this country.  I am unaware of any case in which there has been notified to the court (and so far as I am aware there is no case in which SOCA has been notified) that the Polish authorities have not taken proper account of what they are told about the time in custody.  Ms Bright tells me that there is some anecdotal evidence that things have not always been dealt with as they should have been.  
5.	I do not think that it is, in the circumstances, appropriate that anything is contained in the court order as to length of time.  Apart from anything else, of course, it can only relate to the time spent until today; how long it takes to remove the appellant may depend upon the availability of flights and other considerations.  For what it is worth, I have noted the indication that up to today the period is 47 days.  That is not, as I understand it, dissented from by Mr Payter.  But the normal provisions will apply, and SOCA will no doubt notify, as they always do, of the length of time spent in custody when he is actually to be removed.  
6.	As it is, so far as this court is concerned, all I will do is to dismiss this appeal.