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 >> Wasilewski v Judicial Authority of Radom, Poland [2012] EWHC 2814 (Admin) (26 September 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2814.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2814 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| WASILEWSKI | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF RADOM, POLAND | Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 0207 404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr N Hearn (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE BEAN: Mr Wasilewski appeals to this court against an order of District Judge Zani at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 30 July 2012 ordering his extradition to Poland. He entered a notice of appeal in time. I say that because the District Judge's decision was given on the Monday. The 7th day inclusive of that was a Sunday. The appellant therefore had until the next day, the Monday, in which to enter his notice of appeal (see the speech of Lord Neuberger in Mucelli v Albania).
- The notice of appeal took a number of points, including conditions on military flights to Poland and risk of attack from non-state agents. These would not have had any hope of success in this court, and Miss Bhatt, realistically, has not pursued them.
- The point which she does pursue in this court is that the offences in respect of which the extradition is sought are simply too trivial to justify extradition. They were offences of criminal damage committed on separate occasions - one, damage of a telephone booth; the other, damaging the front door of a shop.
- The appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment apparently in the way commonly occurring in the Polish courts - a suspended sentence in the first instance. Be that as it may, the sentence imposed in each case was 10 months and the appellant has only served a few days. It is not clear from the warrant, but makes no difference in law, whether the sentences were to be concurrent or consecutive.
- The point which Miss Bhatt raises is understandable to the layman, and as a matter of policy it may be wondered why cases of this kind are always pursued, but that is a matter for the Polish authorities, not for this court. In a conviction case such as the present, a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment is sufficient for extradition to be ordered. In this case the sentence is longer. Nor is it relevant that the appellant has not misbehaved in this country. Nor is the delay, even in the earlier case, sufficient to raise any bar by passage of time.
- It follows that there is no reason in law to block Mr Wasilewski's extradition and the appeal must be dismissed.
- I add by way of footnote that the triviality point was not raised before the District Judge, but Mr Hearn for the respondent has sensibly not objected to it being raised in this court, it being a pure point of law which does not depend on the evidence (Hoholm v Norway). But as I have said, the appeal must be dismissed.
- MISS BHATT: My Lord, if I could ask for a costs order, please. There is an assessment order.
- MR JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, the usual legal aid assessment order.