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
		15 February 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge ordering the return of the appellant to Poland in order to serve sentences which had been imposed for two offences. One of theft and burglary imposed in 2002, the sentence outstanding there being 1 year 5 months and 20 days. The other, a robbery committed in June 2004 for which a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was imposed, 2 years, 10 months and 21 days outstanding. As is regularly the case in these Polish extradition warrants it is not clear whether the sentences outstanding are consecutive or concurrent. It does not affect the validity of the request because there is at least 2 years, 10 months and 21 days to serve. But as I said to counsel it seems to me that it is essential, certainly desirable, that either SOCA or the CPS ascertain from the Polish authorities, where there are a number of offences involved resulting in different sentences, what is the cumulative total that remains to be served in any given case so that one avoids any possible confusion as to the precise length of any sentence left.
2. No issues were raised before the District Judge, albeit there was no consent to extradition. In his notice of appeal the appellant says as grounds:

"I not want to be extradited to Poland for many reasons because I have my girlfriend who is living in the UK, I have got very good stable job for long term and I have many things left to finish I have got also community service to do."

This makes clear that he has not behaved himself whilst he has been in this country. Be that as it may, none of those grounds conceivably raise any matter which would justify the allowing of the appeal. He was granted a representation order and Ms Harrison has appeared before me, the solicitors having requested to come off the record, the reason for that being fairly obvious. He has been seen in conference and there is indeed nothing that could properly be put forward on his behalf. No doubt he wants to delay matters and have his own say, but that is not something which can be afforded to him. He had been granted legal representation to experienced solicitors and counsel in extradition matters. He has been informed quite clearly and rightly that there is nothing that can properly be put forward on his behalf. Why in those circumstances extra costs should be incurred in keeping him here to enable him to make his own representations is beyond me. The reality is, as I say, that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. You can have the usual order.

3. MS HARRISON: Thank you