England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		4 November 2010

1. MR JUSTICE CALVERT SMITH: This is an appeal brought under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant wishes to appeal the order of the district judge at Westminster City Magistrates' Court that he be extradited to Poland. Poland is a Category 1 territory under part 1 of the Act.
2. The warrant was founded on the fact that this appellant received a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for robbery at Biala Podlaska District Court on 21 February 2003, the sentence becoming enforceable on 3 March of the same year. It seems, from a letter supplied to the court recently by a Polish lawyer acting on the appellant's behalf, that there were attempts in Poland to postpone the implementation of the sentence. According to the letter there was an application which resulted in the postponement of the sentence effectively for 1 year, from March 2005 to March 2006.
3. A domestic warrant was issued in Poland on 5 March 2007 and the European Arrest Warrant was issued in Poland by the Circuit Court in Lublin, Poland, on 27 April 2008. The warrant was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency in July 2008 and on 2 March of this year the appellant was arrested at his home in Taunton. The following day he was re-arrested at Westminster City Magistrates' Court and appeared before the senior district judge.
4. At that hearing the possibility of a bar to extradition under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was raised, based on the pregnancy of his wife. The case was listed on 22 March before another district judge when the possibility of the hearing in Poland and the withdrawal of the warrant was raised together with the Article 8 issue. On that occasion, Mr Lewczuk did not appear with a solicitor.
5. On 20 April, before the senior district judge again, the case was further adjourned in connection with the possible withdrawal of the warrant and a new submission based upon Article 3 of the European Convention, concerning prison conditions in Poland.
6. On 4 May there was another hearing. At that hearing, or shortly before it, a statement from a Polish lawyer named Czelevska Drozdek was served concerning the overcrowding issue. There was then an application for an adjournment which, though resisted, was granted. The case came before District Judge Evans On 17 June. A further adjournment was sought but refused. The Article 3 argument was placed before the district judge and rejected.
7. The grounds of appeal put forward contain the same grounds as those rejected by the district judge. So far as that ground of appeal is concerned, the district judge said:

"The law is sufficiently well trodden in this area. This case does not meet Article 3. I order extradition".

8. Since that decision, in June of this year, there have been a number of decisions of this court on this very issue. To summarise, the court has ruled, first, that there is a presumption that countries who are signatories to the European Convention will honour their obligations towards requested persons; second, that fears about prison conditions and Article 3 rights should normally be raised within the requesting state and, if necessary, with the European Court of Human Rights; third, that for the courts of this country to intervene and prevent an extradition under Article 3, exceptional circumstances particular to the requested person and the institution in which he would be incarcerated would need to be shown. No such material is put before the court, either by the statement of the Polish lawyer or by the requested person, the appellant.
9. In those circumstances that ground fails.
10. The further ground, not in fact argued it seems before the district judge, but foreshadowed, as I have said, soon after the appellant's arrest, concerning Article 8, once again cannot stand. Prison sentences frequently interfere with private life and the need for the criminal justice process to be followed through cannot be disturbed by what is after all a common event, like the pregnancy of a wife.
11. A subsidiary issue has also been raised in a document served on the court very recently and containing, again, a ground which simply has never been taken before, concerning the passage of time since the original conviction, now more than 7 and a half years ago, and the issue of the warrant. Aside from the fact that this ground was never raised, in spite of the fact that the appellant had the services of counsel in the Magistrates' Court, I have carefully considered this case against the authorities on the point in English courts. In particular Kakis v the Government of Cyprus [1978] 1WLR 779, Gomes v the Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21. Applying those principles to this case, there is no room for the submission on unjust extradition by reason of delay.
12. I turn finally to the real matter which Mr Lewczuk, the appellant, wishes to put before the court, which is his attempts, through the Polish justice system, to have his sentence suspended. He has, as I have indicated, produced a letter from his lawyer which suggests that the lawyer believes that there is an arguable case, albeit one which has been rejected by two courts now in Poland, that the law in Poland would now permit the suspension of his sentence. Mr Lewczuk told me this morning that he had been told by his lawyer that it should be possible for a hearing to be arranged before the ombudsman within a month or so. Of course, when the hearing would actually take place is another matter altogether.
13. The fact remains that there is, for the reasons I have given thus far, a valid order for this appellant's extradition. If, on his third attempt, he can persuade the Polish Supreme Court that his sentence can be suspended, that is a matter for him. But there is nothing, I am afraid, in what I have seen which should cause this court to allow the appeal, which therefore has to be dismissed.
14. THE INTERPRETER: My Lord, may we say one factual thing. He has got a marriage certificate, it is actually his wife not his girlfriend.
15. MR JUSTICE CALVERT SMITH: In that case, if I could see it please. I will make sure I alter the judgment accordingly. Yes.
16. Thank you very much.