CO/7309/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3043 (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 ELSTER 
Claimant 
v 

REGIONAL COURT IN NOWY SACZ, 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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in person assisted by an interpreter Miss A Tomaszewska

Mr Adam Harbison (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 the order of the district judge ordering the appellant's return to Poland to serve the balance of sentences imposed for three separate offences.  It is not entirely clear from the European arrest warrant whether those sentences are due to be served consecutively or concurrently, but the appellant accepts that he is due serve at least one year and eight months in relation to one of the offences, namely robbery.  They are all relatively serious offences, the latest of which was, it seems, imposed in December 2004.  
2.	The appellant was released initially having served part of the sentences imposed upon him.  He says ‑ and it is very understandable ‑ that he was faced with chronic unemployment and wished to come to this country in order to obtain work to support his children and his ex‑wife.  He sought permission, he says, of the prosecutor ‑ because otherwise it would have been a breach of his condition of release ‑ to come here but that permission was refused.  He decided nonetheless that his situation was such that he needed to come here and he did so.  The result was that the court imposed the balance of the unserved sentences.  If he is returned, the court will then sort out whether the sentences or the balances to be served are consecutive or concurrent.  
3.	The claimant raised no opposition before the district judge.  He was then represented.  He tells me ‑ and I have no reason to doubt ‑ that he had raised the problem of the effect on his children were he to be returned.  He does not understand why the solicitor did not raise the point.  The answer is straightforward.  There is a decision of the Supreme Court of this country ‑ which I have to follow ‑ which makes it clear that normally the adverse effect on a wife or children or family generally is not something that makes it disproportionate to return someone to serve a sentence which has been imposed for committing criminal offences.  
4.	In this case, as I understand it from what the appellant has told me, he was here for sometime leaving his ex‑wife and children in Poland.  Unfortunately, he says now that they are teenagers they got into bad company so his ex‑wife decided that the right thing to do would be to send them to be looked after by him.  That is what happened about a year ago.  They are doing well here, have shown a marked improvement and are doing well in school.  At the moment, whilst he is in custody on the extradition warrant, his ex‑wife has come here and is looking after them here.  She has a life in Poland and she will go back there as soon as this matter is sorted out.  
5.	In the light of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, this is not a case where I could properly say that it was disproportionate to return the appellant to Poland.  In those circumstances and the other matter he mentioned in his appeal being the Polish prison conditions ‑ that will not help him now in the light of the authorities ‑ there is nothing I can do for him, and I must dismiss this appeal.