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
		29 June 2012

1. MR JUSTICE SIMON: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham made on 26 March 2012, ordering the appellant's extradition to Poland pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on 13 February 2011 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 24 March 2012.
2. His extradition is sought for the purposes of serving custodial sentences for theft and attempted thefts committed in May 2005 and May to June 2010. The outstanding term is five years. Following his arrest, he was brought before the Magistrates' Court; and through a duty solicitor made clear he contested the extradition, but raised no positive case against extradition.
3. The grounds of appeal raise an unparticularised contention that his extradition would be incompatible with his rights under article 8, the right to family and private life; and at the time they were lodged he was represented by solicitors who said they were waiting for further instructions and had yet to see the judgment of the Senior District Judge.
4. On 16 April, Mr Justice Mitting ordered the appellant to lodge a copy of the European arrest warrant and the judgment, or notes of judgment, of the Deputy Senior District Judge. No such documents have been served, and there is no evidence before the court as to the alleged infringement of article 8 rights.
5. Today, he has submitted that he has put in a claim for asylum under section 39. He says he does not want to go to Poland because it is terrifying, although he says that he was in Poland in May to June 2010, when the second of these offences is said to have taken place.
6. He says he has a family here, he has been here for four years, he has a partner and a 3 year-old child. She works. He himself worked on building sites, and he arrived in this country in April 2008.
7. For the respondent, Miss Hinton points out that there is no evidence of an asylum claim. She submits, although I think this is not really a matter for the court, that it is unlikely to resolve itself in his favour, if there is such an asylum claim. But she also submits that the proper way of dealing with this is to hear the appeal rather than adjourning it; and the asylum claim will be considered in due course, and the order will be suspended until it is dealt with.
8. It seems to me that this is both a sensible and appropriate course, and one which is consistent with authority. In Kozlowski v District Court of Torun Poland [2012] EHWC 1706 (Admin), Mr Justice Ouseley dealt with a similar point and said this at paragraph 20:

"I am entirely satisfied with the benefit of the rather fuller argument here that there ought to be no general approach of granting adjournments. Indeed, in cases involving Council of Europe and EU countries there ought to be a very firm approach not to grant adjournments. Of course, I cannot say that an adjournment should never be granted. One cannot say what all the circumstances might be. But one would very readily anticipate that something on the papers should have emerged early, to give an indication that there was a proper basis for an asylum claim. I say that, bearing in mind that sections 13, 21 and 25 cover much of the territory that can be raised in the course of an asylum claim. The statute is not intended to give an individual optional ways in which he raises grounds of appeal, opting out of raising section 13, 21 and 25 points, he thinks they can be made via an asylum claim."

9. In the light of that, I turn to consider the article 8 points. In my view, there is nothing which takes this case out of the ordinary case. The question is whether the consequences of interference with family life will be exceptionally severe, see HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25. The examples given in those cases show the type of cases which may be regarded as an exceptionally severe interference with family life, although each case must be considered on its own facts.
10. This case in my judgment comes nowhere near to showing that the consequences of interference with family life will be exceptionally severe. The child will be looked after by her mother; her mother works and this is a case of the type which frequently occurs, where one parent may be extradited on the basis of a proper application.
11. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.