[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 >> Sana v The District Court of Kosice, Slovakia [2015] EWHC 694 (Admin) (18 February 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/694.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 694 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		18th February 2015

1. MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: The appellant, who is now aged 21, appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Coleman, made on 1 December 2014 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court, to order his extradition to Slovakia pursuant to an European Arrest Warrant issued by the respondent on 3 February 2014 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 17 July 2014 to face prosecution for an offence of robbery committed on 29 October 2010. The Slovak Republic is a category 1 territory.
2. It is alleged that the victims of the robbery, which took place in the car park of a dialysis centre in Kosice, were two minors who were hit and kicked in a premeditated attack by a group of robbers who included the appellant, who played a full part in the robbery. Cash and a mobile phone and car keys were stolen from one of the victims and a mobile phone from the other. One also suffered minor injuries.
3. The appellant was arrested in Gravesend on 31 August 2014. The initial hearing took place on 1 September 2014 and the extradition hearing itself on 27 November 2014. The sole issue was whether extradition. Would entail a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his family.
4. The appellant and his mother, Anna Badova, gave evidence. The appellant asserted that his mother suffered from advanced chronic scoliosis and that because her mobility was much affected thereby she was essentially dependent upon him. His mother produced her medical reports in evidence.
5. In her reserved judgment the District Judge found that the appellant had exaggerated his mother's physical condition. The judge noted that whilst no doubt it was a help to the appellant's mother to have him about, she and her daughter had come to this country about six months before the appellant and had managed perfectly well without him during that period.
6. Having made reference to the principal authorities in relation to Article 8 and set out the relevant aspects of section 21A of the 2003 Act and of Part 17A 2-4 of the Criminal Practice Direction the District Judge concluded, against the background that the accusation was one of serious crime, that it was entirely proportionate to extradite the appellant.
7. There is a single ground of appeal, namely that the District Judge was wrong to conclude that the appellant's extradition would not be disproportionate by virtue of section 21A of the 2003 Act.
8. However, on 16 February 2015 the appellant's solicitors were permitted, on application, to come off the record, having expressed the view that there was nothing that they could advance in argument in support of the single ground.
9. Withdrawal, although granted, was made conditional upon informing the appellant, who is on bail, of the need to attend the hearing today. The appellant was duly warned but has failed to attend. Given that he was personally warned I conclude that he has chosen not to attend. In those circumstances I have thought it right to consider the appeal in his absence.
10. Mr Gibbins on behalf of the respondent reminds me in his skeleton argument of the relevant provisions in section 21A, in Part 17A of the Practice Direction and of the leading authority on section 21A, namely Miraszewski and Others v the District Court in Torun Poland and Another [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin) and of the leading authorities on Article 8, together with examples of the sort of factors which have been approved in the authorities as being relevant in an Article 8 balancing exercise -- see paragraph 21 of his skeleton argument.
11. Mr Gibbins accepts in his skeleton argument that there is an unexplained delay between the commission of the alleged offence in 2010 and the issue of the domestic warrant in 2013, save to the extent that some of it may have been attributable to the appellant's absence from Poland. It was not, he submits, however, of sufficient length to be determinative of the issue.
12. Whilst the judge made no specific reference to the appellant's good character, it was before her, he points out and she did not treat the appellant as being of bad character. Mr Gibbins submits that the District Judge had the advantage of hearing the evidence, and that it is plain from her carefully expressed judgment that she was entitled to make the findings that she did, that her approach cannot be criticised and nor can her conclusion.
13. Having carefully considered the judge's judgment, I agree with Mr Gibbins. No submissions being advanced in support of the ground and in any event in my judgment it having no merit, it follows that this appeal must be dismissed.
14. Now Mr Gibbins, given the absence of the appellant what are you inviting me to do?
15. MR GIBBINS: Well, my Lord, I don't invite you to do anything at this stage. He is on bail. There is no indication that he is not complying with the conditions of his bail and he was perfectly entitled therefore to be voluntarily absent today. I suppose the only remaining issue is how to communicate the court's decision to him. But on the basis that the court is satisfied that it had made him aware of today's hearing, presumably the same channel can be used to advise him of my Lord's decision today.
16. MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: Yes. That may be impinging upon the solicitor's kindness; of course they are no longer on the record and it was them who communicated directly with him. I certainly have it in mind, bearing in mind he hasn't been here, that I ought to give him seven days to make any representations that he might wish.
17. MR GIBBINS: Yes.
18. MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: But apart from that I will see what can be done informally and if that channel is no longer open, then I will make a formal order as to how he is to be informed.
19. MR GIBBINS: I am most grateful.
20. MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: Is that sensible?
21. MR GIBBINS: Yes. Thank you very much.