CO/3969/2014 
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4025 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Monday, 3rd  November 2014
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE MITTING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between: 
ROBERT DMOCHOWSKI 
Claimant

v 

DISTRICT COURT OF ZAMOSC SECOND PENAL DISION 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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr J Atlee (instructed by Atlee Chung & Co) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr B Seifert (instructed by CPS Extradition) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE MITTING:  This is an appeal against an European Arrest Warrant issued by the President of the District Court of Zamosc on 28 March 2014, to serve the balance of sentences of 2 years and 1 years' imprisonment respectively imposed on 31 May 2011 and 22 March 2011 at the Regional Court of Zamosc for two offences which would be categorised in English law as assaults occasioning bodily harm committed on 10 December and 9 October 2010.  
2.	The balance to be served is 1 year 11 months and 28 days for the first offence and 10 months 10 days for the second.  Both were originally suspended but were activated in January and February 2013 when the appellant failed to comply with conditions of the suspension.  
3.	The warrant was certified by the National Crime Agency on 30 April 2014.  The appellant was arrested on 12 June 2014, it is said by Mr Atlee on his behalf, pursuant to his voluntary surrender when he realised that a warrant was out for his arrest.  After a contested hearing his extradition was ordered by District Judge Snow on 20 August 2014.  The sole challenge was that extradition would infringe the rights of himself and his mother to respect to their family and private life under Article 8.  The District Judge was satisfied that the appellant had come to the United Kingdom in or before 2009, because he was sentenced by an English court on 15 September 2009 for an offence of battery committed on 26 August 2009 and he was sentenced on 13 June 2010 for offences of theft committed on 18 May 2010.  He was again sentenced on 15 June 2010 for an offence committed on 17 April 2010.  He then left for Poland, where he committed the two offences the subject of the European Arrest Warrant.   He then returned to England.  The District Judge did not accept the appellant's account that he had the permission of his Polish probation officer to leave Poland.  In any event, it seems that he failed to comply with a requirement of Polish law that as a person as subject to a suspended sentence, he notify the Polish authorities of his whereabouts.
4.	The appellant's case, supported by a witness statement from his mother, who lives in Huntingdon, is that she has problems with the joints of her fingers and toes which require some domestic help from him.  However, she works at a meat factory.  He says that he is in regular employment even if it is intermittent.  
5.	On those stark facts the District Judge concluded that his right to respect for his family and private life under Article 8 was significantly outweighed by the duty of the United Kingdom to comply with its Treaty obligations.  Nothing that I have read in the papers or to which Mr Atlee has drawn my attention causes me to call into doubt that conclusion of the District Judge.
6.	Mr Atlee also refers to a further point.  The appellant has spent the last four‑and‑a‑half months in custody in the United Kingdom, as do many Polish prisoners wanted on conviction warrants.  They are then able to serve their sentences or part of their sentences in circumstances which they judge more congenial than if required to complete them in Poland.  Mr Atlee submits, correctly, that would be the equivalent of a 9 month sentence in England and Wales.  Accordingly, he submits that if, as is not unlikely, the Polish sentences are aggregated so that the appellant has in effect a 2 year sentence to serve rather than 3 years, that only some 15 months or so of the nominal sentence will remain to be served.  As is well known to those who sit on Polish extradition appeals, in most cases Polish law permits a prisoner who has behaved himself in detention to be released after the half way point of his sentence has been reached.  Accordingly, Mr Atlee submits that the appellant has only some seven‑and‑a‑half months or so to serve if returned to Poland.  This is not however one of those cases in which either the whole sentence has been served in England or Wales or all but a very small part of it: a substantial part of these sentences remain to be served even if developments in Poland take the course most favourable to the appellant.
7.	This is not a case in which it can be said to be disproportionate or a disproportionate interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights, in light of the period of time remaining to be served.  Accordingly, I must and do dismiss this appeal.
8.	MR JUSTICE MITTING:  Mr Atlee, do you want an order? 
9.	MR ATLEE:  May I ask for the usual order my Lord.
10.	MR JUSTICE MITTING:  Of course.