[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 >> Zielinski v Regional Court In Poznan Poland [2013] EWHC 1511 (Admin) (15 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1511.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1511 (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
		15 May 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge McPhee, who on 13 March 2013 ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland in order to serve a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment which had been imposed for an offence of theft, the theft being of an item to the value of something in the order of £230. In fact, that sentence had been suspended when it was imposed.
2. The offence in question was committed in 2001 but the court proceedings did not conclude until June 2004 when 1 years' imprisonment suspended for 3 years was imposed. In addition, there was an order that the appellant pay compensation to the loser and according to his evidence he was also ordered to do 100 hours unpaid work. He says he completed 50 hours. The arrest warrant is silent as to that.
3. Be that as it may, he decided to leave Poland in August 2004 and he did not notify either his probation officer or indeed anyone else in authority that he was leaving and coming to this country, albeit he continued to pay maintenance for a 14-year-old son who is still in Poland. So I suppose if checks had been made it might have been possible to locate him somewhat earlier.
4. In September 2006 the court ordered execution of the 12 month sentence; largely, I am told, because of the failure to pay the compensation which had been ordered. It was not until something over a year later, namely at the end of November 2007, that the court issued a domestic arrest warrant, and in 2009 what are described as executive proceedings were suspended until the appellant was apprehended. It is recorded on the face of the warrant that he was hiding from the judicial authorities. That explains, no doubt, why the matter was not dealt with so far as the extradition EAW was concerned until 2012.
5. There has accordingly been quite a substantial delay overall. On the other hand, the appellant has been the author to a large extent of that delay by leaving the country without informing the authorities and remaining here, again without indicating where he was and has failed to take any steps to comply with the court order in relation to compensation.
6. He is regarded as a fugitive from justice by the Polish authorities and delay was not raised before the District Judge, nor has it been raised before me. It was a specific ground of appeal in the sense that it could be argued that there was delay and thus it was oppressive to return but the concentration has been on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is based upon the fact that for the last 18 months or so he has been living with a young lady who is a British citizen but who, sadly, has very poor health. That is as a result of an unpleasant operation which she has had to her jaw. She was released from hospital in January 2013. She has also had kidney problems. In addition, she suffers from depression and she sees a psychiatrist for that and has a prescription for drugs to assist in alleviating her depression.
7. These matters were all raised before the District Judge who gave a lengthy and detailed judgment. I also have before me an agreed note of the evidence which was given both by the appellant and by the lady with whom he has been living. She described the problems and how hard it would be if he were no longer there to assist her because he has, effectively, been acting as her carer, and she says that she had been, as she put it, kicked out by her mother and would not be able to live with her. However, as the note shows, she did say quite clearly that she would be able on manage on her own.
8. The District Judge directed himself properly in the approach that he should adopt, in that he said there was no test of exceptionality; the question was whether the interference with the private and family lives of the requested person and his partner was outweighed by the constant and weighty public interest in extradition, that people convicted of crimes should serve their sentences and that the United Kingdom should honour its obligations to other countries. Although he does not specifically refer in his judgment to the decision of the Supreme Court in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, what he there says reflects what the court indicated was the appropriate test.
9. It was urged upon him that the offending was relatively low level and that a sentence of imprisonment, let alone one of 12 months, would not have been imposed in this country. Indeed, it is improbable that the appellant would have received a custodial sentence at all. The circumstances of the offending can be a relevant consideration for the court to take into account but the court in this country has to be very careful in assessing whether the sentence imposed by the court in the requesting state is one which is an appropriate and proper sentence. We do not know what are the circumstances that prevail, whether there is a need, or a perceived need, to deal severely with particular sorts of offending, and it is not for us to impose our views of the appropriate level of sentence on the courts of the requesting state.
10. However, as I say, it is a matter that can be taken into account in judging whether return would be proportionate. Theft is, of course, a serious matter in itself and there is no doubt that the appellant was well aware of his obligation and simply chose to disregard them and leave the country. Whereas, if he had remained, or even if he had paid the compensation from abroad, the likelihood is that he would not have had the sentence put into effect. But, as I say, he chose not to do that.
11. Harsh though it is so far as his partner is concerned, I am satisfied that the District Judge properly and fully considered that aspect. As I say, she herself accepted that she would be able to manage on her own were the appellant not to be there to help to look after her. It seems to me in those circumstances and overall that this is not a case where it can properly be said that the Article 8 rights of the appellant and indeed of his partner are such as render it in the circumstances disproportionate to order his extradition.
12. In those circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.
13. You may have the usual order, Mr Atlee.