CO/5752/2014 
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 692 (Admin)
IN HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand,London WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday, 18th February 2015
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between: 
JABRZYK 
Appellant

v 

THE SPECIAL CRIME DIVISION ‑ CPS 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DAR 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 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS R HILL (instructed by BULLIVANTS) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MS L COLLINS (instructed by CPS EXTRADITION) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE SWEENEY:  The appellant, who is in his mid 20s, appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Ikram, made on 4 December 2014 in the Westminster Magistrates' Court, to order his extradition to Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the respondent on 28 March 2014 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 20 August 2014 for the surrender of the appellant to Poland to serve a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment imposed for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed on 10 May 2009.  
2.	The offence involved the appellant, acting with another, punching and kicking the victim, causing general bruising, mainly to the head, and numerous abrasions around the eyes.  The background chronology is set out in some detail in the judgment of the District Judge.
3.	The appellant gave evidence at the extradition hearing.  The sole issue at that hearing was whether his extradition was compatible or otherwise with his and his family's Article 8 rights.  
4.	The District Judge found as a fact that the appellant was not a fugitive and further found, having conducted the requisite balancing exercise in accordance with the authorities, that the appellant's extradition would not amount to a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, his sister or his mother.  An appeal was lodged upon the sole ground that the judge was wrong to reach that conclusion.
5.	Appearing on the appellant's behalf, Ms Hill has informed me that there is no argument that can be put forward in support of that ground.  Having had the opportunity to consider the District Judge's judgment and in the light of the recent case of Belbin, that view is not at all surprising.  In those circumstances, no argument being advanced in support of the appeal, it is dismissed.
6.	Now, consequential orders, if any?
7.	MS HILL:  None, I think.
8.	MR JUSTICE SWEENEY:  Thank you.