BAILII [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 >> Miechowicz v Sad Okregowy In Kielce Poland [2013] EWHC 704 (Admin) (07 March 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/704.html
Cite as: [2013] EWHC 704 (Admin)

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


Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 704 (Admin)
CO/12321/2012

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

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
7 March 2013

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE COLLINS
____________________

Between:
MIECHOWICZ Claimant
v
SAD OKREGOWY IN KIELCE 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 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

The Claimant appeared in person
Mr A Harbinson (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Zani given on 12 November last year that the appellant should be removed to Poland in order to serve a remaining sentence of 12 months imposed for offences of theft and forgery which had been committed a considerable time ago in 2000. The two offences in question arose out of an issue with his ex-wife. It is said that he took a colour television set and a freezer and, in addition, that he, in October 2004 forged a license fee agreement between the television company and his wife and he signed it in his wife's name.
  2. When the matter was first raised before this court the appellant had received a letter from Poland which indicated the possibility that the warrant might be withdrawn. In those circumstances, Cranston J adjourned the consideration of the appeal. Unfortunately for the appellant, by letter of 5 March, it has been made clear by the judicial authority that the warrant is not being withdrawn, that the local court, as it was put, gave a negative opinion on clemency and, accordingly, the warrant was in full force still.
  3. In a letter which the appellant wrote to the court which effectively sets out his grounds of appeal, he makes the point that this arose out of a domestic dispute and that he had indeed repaid the value of what was alleged to have been taken. He tells me that he was forced into a plea of guilty by various circumstances. I am afraid it is not possible for me to go into that issue. I have before me a warrant issued by the judicial authority in Poland and any issues that he can raise in relation to whether the sentence should be imposed in full, or whether there should be some degree of clemency is, I am afraid, a matter for the Polish court.
  4. He tells me that his children depend upon him in the sense that he is the only breadwinner. He has come to this country and earns money and sends money to ensure that they are looked after. If he goes back to Poland and goes to prison then that will be cut off and so they will suffer. That creates hardship, but the situation would be no different were he to have remained in Poland and faced the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed. The fact that he has come here and found work which has enabled him to send money back to look after his children is not, I fear, a proper ground for saying that it is disproportionate that he be returned. I am afraid that there is no basis in the circumstances for saying that there is a bar to removal and this appeal must, in those circumstances, be dismissed.
  5. I am sorry, Mr Miechowicz, but I cannot help you. What about bail, Mr Harbinson?
  6. MR HARBINSON: My Lord, I understand that he has been on bail throughout the proceedings.
  7. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes. You have been on bail with conditions, I imagine. I shall continue the bail on the same terms. Bail will be continued until notification is given to you that you have to go through the airport, I suspect, for the purpose of being removed. I am not going to keep you in custody, you remain on bail.
  8. THE CLAIMANT: Can I change my address?
  9. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You will have to negotiate that with the Crown Prosecution Service. Why do you need to change your address?
  10. THE CLAIMANT: Because I cannot afford to live in London any more.
  11. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I see. That's not a matter for me. You will have to raise that with the CPS and they will decide whether that is a permissible change.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/704.html