[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 >> Pluciennik, R (On the Application Of) v Circuit Court, Swidnica, Poland [2015] EWHC 1933 (Admin) (08 June 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1933.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 1933 (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
		8 June 2015

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: 1. This is an appeal under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge McPhee given on 24 March 2015 whereby he ordered that the appellant be extradited to Poland in order to serve sentences totaling some fourteen months' imprisonment for two offences of driving - in one case a motor car and the other a moped - with excess alcohol. The second of the two offences occurred in January 2013, the earlier one in January 2011. He pleaded guilty and was dealt with by the Polish court on 19 June 2013.

1. The appellant had come to the United Kingdom in February 2013. He came with his partner and two children. The elder child, born in March 2006, was not a child of the relationship with his partner but was treated as and has ever since been treated as a child of the family. The second child was born on 24 February 2012. The appellant said that he had come to this country in order to better himself. The district judge did not doubt that that was indeed a motive for his leaving Poland, but he was also aware that he faced sentence for the offences which were treated as serious for obvious reasons. He had done it in fact on three occasions altogether because there were two separate occasions in respect of the riding of the moped. The district judge found as a fact that he was a fugitive from justice because he was well aware that he was due to be sentenced. He said that he thought a suspended sentence would result, but there was no real basis for that assumption.
2. The position therefore is that he chose to try to avoid being sent to prison in Poland and came to this country. In those circumstances it must be obvious that his Article 8 rights are based on very weak material.
3. The question is whether the rights of his partner and the children mean that it would be disproportionate to extradite him. The district judge considered that and was satisfied on the authorities that the extradition could not be regarded as disproportionate. His wife works part-time. Obviously, if he is not around she will have difficulty in continuing work because of the need to look after the children. However it is clear, on the face of it, that she is exercising Treaty rights quite independently of being the dependant of the appellant. Therefore, she may well have a right to remain here and be looked after financially until the appellant returns. He has to face fourteen months or thereabouts imprisonment. That of course is the maximum he will have to face.
4. I will come to consider information I have had about applications that are due to be made in Poland.
5. However, as it is, I take the view that the decision of the district judge cannot be impugned. Whether or not his reasons were altogether satisfactory in every respect is nothing to the point. The ultimate decision is one which cannot be regarded as wrong.
6. When this case was called on this morning Mr Hawkes indicated that he had considered the matter carefully and took the view - and had given advice to this effect to the appellant - that he could not properly advance any arguments to overturn the decision of the district judge.
7. I was informed that the appellant wanted to attend and to make such points as he was able in support of his appeal together with his partner. He has appeared. His English is not very good. Mr Hawkes has had the opportunity to discuss with his wife any additional material. Her English is not by any means good but it is better than his. Between them, the necessary information, I understand, has been elicited.
8. In the circumstances the decision I must reach is that this appeal must be dismissed.
9. However I am told that there has been an application in Poland. That is an application to stay the order for imprisonment for six months. Apparently, there is power in Poland for the court to make such an order. If it does, then obviously this warrant would have to be withdrawn because the basis of a conviction warrant is that the person is to be extradited in order to serve the sentence of imprisonment. If the need to serve is deferred for a period then that would be inconsistent with the basis on which these warrants are issued. In addition, albeit I have no evidence that such an application has been made, I know from experience in dealing with a number of these cases from Poland that there is discretion in the court to allow a person to be released after serving half of any particular sentence. No doubt, an application to that effect is likely to be made. So it is not necessarily the case that he will have to serve the full fourteen months.
10. I am told that since he has been in this country there has been no question of any offending. He obviously had a drink problem and chose to drive when he had too much to drink. It may be - one hopes - that he has now put that behind him. That may be a factor which will influence the Polish court.
11. However since I am told that the decision of the court is expected in four weeks, what I have indicated I am prepared to do in the circumstances is to direct that the order of the court dismissing this appeal will not come into effect until Monday three weeks on (whatever that date is) because there are fourteen days thereafter before that decision is final. That will give a period of five weeks before the dismissal of the appeal becomes final. Within that period the Polish court, if it keeps its promise to make a decision in four weeks, will have decided whether his application succeeds.
12. Miss Pottle, I ask that the Crown Prosecution Service notify the judicial authority in Poland of what I have done and indicate how important it is that the decision is indeed made within the four-week period.

MISS POTTLE: Yes. Shall I convey that the decision is not to take effect until 29 June?

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: If that is the date, yes.

MR HAWKES: I am obliged.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Hawkes, for the assistance you have given me.