British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> Monasterski v Sad Okregowy W Katowicach Poland [2012] EWHC 1311 (Admin) (02 May 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1311.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1311 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| MONASTERSKI | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| SAD OKREGOWY W KATOWICACH POLAND | Respondent |
____________________
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)
Mr A Harbinson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE MITTING: By a conviction European Arrest Warrant, issued on 10 March 2008 by the Circuit Court in Katowice, the extradition of the appellant is sought to serve a sentence of 1 year and 3 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court at Bytom on 17 July 2000 for two offences of thefts from cars committed on 19 and 20 February 1999.
- The appellant raised a number of contentions before the district judge. He contended that he had served 8 months of the sentence by dint of being under house arrest (I assume while awaiting trial) and had applied for the remaining 5 months to be suspended. He applied to the district judge for an adjournment to permit a substantive hearing of his application to take place in the District Court in Katowice.
- In this appeal, he has said that he awaits the judgment of the Divisional Court in Bytom on a similar application. I am told that he has also made an application for a presidential pardon. Mr Harbinson, who appears for the requesting state, tells me, and I accept, that as of yesterday SOCA had confirmed that the warrant was still effective and outstanding.
- The grounds on which the appellant sought to resist extradition before the district judge were familiar Polish grounds: that Polish prisons were overcrowded and that his right to respect for his and his family's life under Article 8 would be infringed if he were to be extradited. He had a partner and child. The district judge dealt with all of these submissions shortly but unimpeachably. He concluded that the state of affairs in Polish prisons had been reviewed on numerous occasions by the courts and, absent specific evidence, would not give rise to a successful challenge under Article 3, and that the appellant's family life in the United Kingdom did not prohibit his extradition to Poland for familiar reasons. Nothing in the reasoning of the district judge is, in my judgment, open to criticism.
- Further, on 25 January 2012, Ouseley J ordered the appellant to lodge the European Arrest Warrant within 14 days and warned him that failure to comply would result in the appeal be listed to be struck out. Mr Harbinson tells me that a file was lodged by the appellant, although it has not reached me. In those circumstances, I do not give effect to Ouseley J's order, but dismiss the appeal on conventional grounds on the basis that the reasoning and conclusion of the district judge was right.