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
		2 September 2014

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: The extradition of the Appellant is sought on a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued by the President of the Circuit Court of Torun on 16 July 2013 to serve 1) one year, 11 months and 29 days of a sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed as a suspended sentence on 3 February 2004, activated on 8 February 2007 for a robbery committed on 28 August 2003, and 2) one year, ten months and seven days of a sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed as a suspended sentence on 24 April 2008 and activated on 10 February 2012 for a robbery committed on 2 June 2006. In each case the robbery was a street robbery and actual violence was used to effect the theft of cash in the first case and of a mobile telephone in the second.
2. The warrant was certified by the NCA on 18 October 2013. The appellant was arrested on 22 November 2013 and taken to Westminster Magistrates' Court. After a contested hearing Senior District Judge Riddle ordered the extradition of the Appellant on 3 February 2014.
3. The sole ground of challenge was and is Article 8. The Appellant accepted that he was present at the trial of both charges and that he left Poland for the United Kingdom in early 2009 without the permission of his probation officer during the period of suspension of the second sentence. The District Judge found, unsurprisingly, that when he left Poland he knew he was in breach of the suspended sentence order and must have realised that implementation was likely, if not certain. He was joined by his long-term partner soon after. They have a son, born on 27 October 2011, who is now nearly three. The Appellant, since his arrival in England, has worked hard as a car valeter. He is the sole means of support of his partner and son. On those not uncommon facts, which always give rise to great difficulties, the Senior District Judge's conclusion was as follows:

"I accept surrender to Poland will cause hardship to the family. Victor is attached to his father and will miss him. I do not underestimate the value of a father present in a family. This father provides emotional and material support. This is important to a child, although many children today apparently thrive in a single parent family. I do not know whether mother will return to Poland or will stay here and work or claim benefits. The offences for which Mr Stawicki is sought to serve sentences are serious by any standard. He is a fugitive from the most recent and the most serious of them, for which implementation was ordered a few months before Victor was born.

Surrender is proportionate, bearing in mind our international obligations and the undesirability of this country becoming a haven for criminals. Article 8 is not made out."

4. The Senior District Judge's reasoning and conclusion were unimpeachable and, had matters stood there, this would inevitably have joined the list of those appeals which would be summarily dismissed.
5. However, without opposition from Miss Brown for the requesting authority and with my approval, further evidence has been adduced on the part of the Appellant, first to bring to the attention of the court a fact which did not exist when Senior District Judge Riddle decided the case and, secondly, to deal with part of the circumstances of the Appellant's family which the District Judge left open, namely what his partner and child would do if he were to be extradited. He said that he did not know, indeed he had no material upon which he could have known whether or not she would return to Poland to reside with her family. The new fact is that the Appellant's partner is pregnant with their second child. The expected date of confinement is 23 January 2015.
6. The information about the circumstances of the Appellant's family in Poland is contained in declarations by her father and by the sister of the Appellant and by a proof of evidence signed by him dated 16 June 2014. It is not necessary to say any more about that evidence than that it establishes to my satisfaction that there is not available in Poland suitable accommodation for the Appellant's partner and their son and, after the birth, of their second child either. The family lives in cramped circumstances. The Appellant's partner's mother is in need of constant medication. Their means are straitened, there simply is not available to this family a realistic possibility of relocating temporarily to Poland.
7. Accordingly, this case must now be approached on the basis that if the Appellant is extradited to Poland his partner and child and child to be born will remain in the United Kingdom. Ms Collins does not suggest that if that occurs that his partner will not be able to draw upon United Kingdom state benefits for her support and the support of the children as the long-term partner of an EU national exercising Treaty rights. She is entitled to reside here and, under present law, like any other resident is entitled to the payment of state benefits if her economic circumstances demand it. Likewise, her children are entitled to the full protection of the statutory regimes in place for the protection and support of children.
8. This case, therefore, falls into that category of case where a difficult judgment has to be made. I do not ask myself what Senior District Judge Riddle would have decided had he had this information but what I should decide now that I do. I approach that task as suggested by Lady Hale in HH. There is no doubt whatever that the extradition of this Appellant will cause not only him but, far more importantly, his family and his child and child to be serious hardship. His partner and child are blameless in all of this. For the time during which he would serve his sentence of imprisonment in Poland they will be economically dependent on the British taxpayer and then remotely for emotional support upon his partner's family in Poland. There is no doubt that the removal for many months of the Appellant from their company will cause serious hardship to them.
9. On the other hand, there is always a constant and weighty public interest in ensuring full compliance by the British state with its international obligations, especially where, as here, extradition is sought to serve sentences imposed for serious offences. They are offences that would attract a significant custodial sentence in the United Kingdom. The sentences imposed in Poland are in no way excessive by any standard. The demand of the Polish authority that the Appellant should serve those sentences is one that is necessary in upholding the rule of law in Poland and throughout the European Union. The fact that the Appellant's life has changed for the better and that his attitude to it has changed much for the better since he arrived in the United Kingdom is, of course, a factor but one which has only so much weight against the compelling public interest in upholding the United Kingdom's international obligations.
10. I do not find this a straightforward balancing exercise but in the end, like Senior District Judge Riddle on the facts as originally presented to him, I am driven to the conclusion that the United Kingdom's obligations outweigh the compelling demands of his family, just, and therefore require that this appeal is dismissed.
11. MS COLLINS: My Lord, I don't know whether actually I need to ask for the relevant order but --
12. MR JUSTICE MITTING: If do you, you can have it. Thank you for your submissions. I have acknowledged in my judgment this was a difficult case and you made your submissions with restraint and force.
13. MS COLLINS: My Lord, thank you.