[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 >> Korkosz, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court, Warszawa-Praga, Warsaw [2015] EWHC 698 (Admin) (02 February 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/698.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 698 (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
		2 February 2015

1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of the district judge on 11 November 2014 ordering the extradition of the appellant to Poland on a conviction European arrest warrant to serve a sentence of imprisonment of one year and two months in respect of four offences. Those four offences in summary include assault, shoplifting and assaulting a police officer. The details of the words spoken and assault are not particularly serious. They are comparatively minor examples of the offences which can arise under that category. However the Polish courts were entitled to take a more serious view of them than may have been the case in the United Kingdom.
2. The appellant clearly is a person who has had very considerable problems with authority and with alcohol. The appellant came to this country in 2010. He was extradited in 2011 and he served a sentence of a year for an offence. As he was not extradited on this warrant, he could refuse to consent to having the matter dealt with as he did. He knew however that it would be dealt with. He returned to this country in 2013. His extradition has already been ordered to Poland by Mr Justice Mitting on another warrant on which he is required to serve a sentence of eleven months and eleven days. He has a record of minor offending in this country, largely for offences of theft and public disorder, no doubt resulting from drink.
3. Mr Newton puts forward one point in relation to Article 8 and relies on evidence not before Mr Justice Mitting. In particular this is evidence from the appellant's partner with whom he has been living for the past fifteen months. His partner is a lady of impeccable background and responsibility who, according to the appellant's evidence and hers, has been instrumental in bringing about a turnaround in his life and attitudes over the last year or so. He committed the offences that I am concerned with in 2007. As a youngish man - now 30 - he may well have had the opportunity of changing, not so much over the course of seven years but the rather shorter period of his partnership with his current partner.
4. There is undoubtedly an interference with his Article 8 rights and it can seem harsh that if he has turned himself around he now has to return to face not just eleven months and eleven days but an additional one year and two months' imprisonment. But he has brought that upon himself by his deliberate evasion of his sentence, and it would be quite wrong for this court to treat his current circumstances as sufficiently strong to outweigh the importance of respecting the judicial decisions of another jurisdiction.
5. Mr Newton has put his case succinctly, but it has to be refused.
6. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.