England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Raczynski v Regional Court In Kielce Poland [2011] EWHC 1959 (Admin) (07 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/1959.html
Cite as: [2011] EWHC 1959 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 1959 (Admin)
		CO/4076/2011

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

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

7 July 2011

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
____________________

Between:

	RACZYNSKI	Claimant
	v
	REGIONAL COURT IN KIELCE 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 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

The Claimant appeared in person and was assisted by Ms I Wójcik, a Polish interpreter
Miss H Pye (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Purdy on 28 April 2011, whereby he ordered the extradition to Poland of this appellant to face trial in relation to an offence of aggravated burglary in December 2001 and for execution of a custodial sentence for an offence of robbery, committed in May 2001, for which the appellant received a custodial sentence of 2 years.

The appellant was arrested in this country in February 2011, pursuant to a warrant issued in 2009. The hearing was adjourned on 8 February to 1 March 2011, at which an issue under section 14 of the Extradition Act was raised. The case was adjourned for a full hearing and came on for hearing before District Judge Purdy on 21 March 2011. An application to adjourn for time to compromise the warrant was refused. Argument was heard, the case was adjourned for judgment, and it was handed down ordering extradition on 28 April 2011.

So there have been, in addition to the first hearing when the matter was opened, two other occasions when issues were raised and the appellant and his lawyers had the opportunity to raise all the issues which they wished to raise, including human rights issues. The appellant was represented at the extradition hearing by counsel, Miss Westcott, an experienced extradition lawyer. The judge dismissed the passage of time arguments, holding that the appellant had actively frustrated the proper judicial process.

Following the order for his extradition, the appellant appealed. His notice of appeal does not challenge the conclusion of the district judge on passage of time. After setting out statutory provisions, the grounds of appeal in his name are that it is contended that Mr Raczynski's extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with the private life that he had established here and he would face inhuman or degrading conditions in a Polish prison. That was not supported by any evidence, nor by any explanation as to why those matters had not been raised before District Judge Purdy.

Mr Raczynski dispensed with the services of his solicitors and decided that he would change to advice from a Kamil Krajewski, who offered his services as an extradition advisor for fees. Mr Raczynski signed a piece of paper in English which was the application for permission on his behalf to use Mr Krajewski as a McKenzie friend. He explained the terms upon which he sought to involve Mr Krajewski. That application also discloses, as is the case, that Mr Krajewski was himself subject to extradition proceedings. Those extradition proceedings concluded with his removal from the country two weeks ago.

That application was made on 3 May 2011, very shortly after the notice of appeal was filed. The case came before me for consideration as to whether Mr Krajewski could be used. On 9 May, I ordered that the appellant could have Mr Krajewski as a McKenzie friend, but not as an advocate. If he was to act as an advocate, he would have to apply again. But the order warned that if permission to use him as an advocate were refused, there would be no adjournment, and he was warned that Mr Krajewski should be aware that the use of a paid but unqualified advocate required exceptional circumstances which did not exist. He was also warned in that order that that permission did not imply and could not be taken as either warranting a delay in Mr Krajewski's removal, nor would it effect the listing of this appeal.

That order was intended to convey clearly to Mr Raczynski and to Mr Krajewski the problems which they would face if Mr Krajewski were removed or if he were not permitted to act as an advocate. In my judgment, there is no reason why Mr Raczynski, faced with that, should not have sought legal advice from a qualified lawyer not liable to be extradited to another country. He did not do so. Two weeks have passed since Mr Krajewski has been extradited and there has been nothing beyond an application today for an adjournment so that Mr Raczynski can try to find another lawyer.

I declined the adjournment. I did so because the case had been considered on a number of occasions by the district judge and human rights arguments had not been raised. The human rights arguments were in any event manifestly hopeless, as I shall come to, so there was no point adjourning so that he could have the benefit of another solicitor alerting him to that hopelessness. In any event, he had had ample warning that he was at risk in trying to rely on Mr Krajewski and had failed to take any sensible step to deal with this.

This is an appellant who has to be approached with caution in the light of the district judge's conclusion that in Poland he was actively seeking to frustrate the judicial process and has had the benefit of adjournments before the district judge.

Turning to the merits of the appeal, so far as they are concerned leave is required to put forward any evidence in relation to Article 3 and Article 8. I am told that he did, in fact, give evidence that he had a partner now that he was in the United Kingdom and the partner had a teenage daughter, not one of his. He is permitted, therefore, to point to Article 8 initially on the basis of evidence that was before the court. However, it is perfectly clear that such interference with his private life as extradition would entail could not possibly reach the threshold required (see for example the decision in Norris v Government of United States of America [2010] UKSC 9) to warrant allowing this appeal.

In so far as conditions in Polish prisons, there is no evidence from him in relation to their condition, but in any event this court has dealt with that issue on innumerable occasions and there is, in my judgment, nothing in that point. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

Thank you, Mr Raczynski.

THE INTERPRETER: Sorry. He doesn't know what is going to happen next.

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Are you on bail?

THE APPELLANT: Yes.

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: You remain on bail, but that is the end of your case. The next step, I think, will probably be an appointment for you to go to the place that will be indicated to you and then you will be removed.

Thank you, Mr Raczynski.