[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 >> Lukaszewski v Regional Court Gdansk Poland [2015] EWHC 3105 (Admin) (16 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/3105.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 3105 (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
		16 October 2015

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an appeal whereby the appellant challenges the decision of District Judge Ikram, made on 20 March this year, to order his extradition to Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. That is an accusation warrant issued by the Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland, on 6 June last year. It was certified by the National Crime Agency on 24 July last year.
2. The appellant is sought to stand trial for a single offence of fraud committed around 2007. The fraud was reported by the victim. It involved the forging of signatures in order to obtain a number of mobile telephones on credit. The loss was suffered by a Polish company. The amount involved was some £925 sterling. The maximum sentence stated in the warrant for the offending is 8 years' imprisonment.
3. The matter came before King J on 20 May this year. He adjourned the hearing on the appellant's application, the purpose of the adjournment being for the appellant to obtain evidence that the Polish prosecuting authorities had indicated to his Polish defence lawyer that they would be willing to interview the appellant at the Polish Consul in Manchester in relation to the alleged offence.
4. In the course of the proceedings, King J said that he had been told by Mr Hearn, who represented the appellant at that stage and represents him again today, that according to the appellant, the Polish court had indicated to the appellant's instructed lawyer in Poland that they would be willing to arrange that interview. The Polish lawyer had been told that, before that could be done, there had to be an indication by this court that it was prepared to delay the hearing. It was on that basis that King J granted the adjournment.
5. No interview has occurred in the meanwhile. On instructions this morning, Mr Hearn informs me that that is not attributable to any unwillingness on the part of the appellant. Mr Hearn realistically conceded that the matter could be adjourned no longer and on that basis made submissions in relation to the District Judge's findings.
6. In the course of his judgment the District Judge addressed the section 21A and Article 8 ECHR argument. The District Judge considered the delay, namely that the offences had been committed at some time in 2007. He commented that much of the delay lay at the door of the appellant himself. He also remarked that the offending, while not trivial, was not the most serious kind. The District Judge considered the position of the appellant and his family: that he had been with his partner for a year, that the 5 year old stepdaughter lived with them and that the partner was (at that time) pregnant. Subsequently, she has given birth to the couple's child.
7. The District Judge commented that this case was in no way out of the ordinary and that sadly, as in many extradition cases, hardship will result when a breadwinner is extradited. The District Judge concluded, after considering other matters such as the public interest in expedition, that he was not satisfied that it would amount to a disproportionate interference with the appellant or his family's Article 8 rights.
8. In his submissions, Mr Hearn contends that the balance has changed subsequently as a result of the information about the possibility that the appellant can be interviewed in Manchester. That meant that the balance conducted by the District Judge had changed. It could be said to be proportionate to extradite the appellant. Mr Hearn underlined the age of the offence, that it was at the lower end of the scale and the family situation of the appellant.
9. There is no doubt that the situation has changed as a result of the indication which has been given by the Polish authorities and which was taken into account by King J when he granted the adjournment in May. However, the judicial authority in further information provided to the District Judge dated 10 March 2015 described on at least two occasions in 2013 when the appellant had been advised of the possibility of arranging a date for an interview at a time convenient for him at the Manchester Consul's office. In neither case were those opportunities taken up. The appellant contends that those offers were sent to addresses where he no longer resided. However, coupled with the fact that nothing has occurred since the adjournment in May, it seems to me that there have been too many opportunities which had not been taken advantage of by the appellant for the most recent opportunity to change the balance dramatically so as to undermine the conclusion of the District Judge in March of this year.
10. The District Judge's decision was pre Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Ors [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin). However, in my view he took into account all relevant matters. He reached a decision which I do not regard as wrong notwithstanding the points attractively advanced by Mr Hearn. I dismiss the appeal.