Case No. CO/6685/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3031 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 
 
Date: Friday 5 October 2012 
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF OPOZDA 
Claimant 
v 

CIRCUIT COURT IN GLIWICE, POLAND 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
The Claimant was not represented, did not attend

Mr J Stansfeld (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T

1.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  This is an appeal against an order of the district judge that the appellant should be returned to Poland in order to serve a balance of sentences of imprisonment imposed for a large number of offences.  The balance outstanding is something in the order of three years and seven months' imprisonment.  
2.	The decision is that of District Judge Wickham and was given on 21 June.  The appellant was discharged for two of the offences: one of insulting a police officer and the other of failing to pay child maintenance.  Neither of those are extradition offences.  He argued that a further offence ‑ one of using evil threats against police officers and threatening them with life deprivation in order to force them not to arrest him was also not an extradition offence.  That was considered by the district judge and, properly, in my judgment, rejected.  Clearly threats to kill do amount to an extradition offence.  
3.	That was the only ground of appeal that was put forward on his behalf.  It has no merit.  Accordingly, I will dismiss this appeal.  
4.	There is one proviso I must deal with.  The appellant is on bail but has not attended.  However I am entirely satisfied that he was aware of these proceedings because I am told by Mr Stansfeld that he sent the skeleton argument and other documents that he proposed to put before the court, by post, to the address provided by the appellant in his notice of appeal.  That was the address which the court also notified of this appeal.  Mr Stansfeld tells me that his clerk was telephoned by the appellant's wife and was informed of the time at which the appellant should attend court and where the High Court was.  I have no doubt in those circumstances that he was well aware of these proceedings and has chosen not to attend.  
5.	In those circumstances I dismiss this appeal.