QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|DISTRICT COURT IN LUBIN POLAND||Respondent|
WordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss C Brown (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"Length of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed: 3 (three) years and 6 (six) months of detention.
Remaining sentence to be served, 2 (two) years and 4 (four) months and 10 (ten) days of detention."
"The first thing to be aware of is that the vast majority of people for whom extradition is sought is to return to serve a sentence or to trial. If we asked Poland to return someone, it would be sympathetically received.
I am considering your rights and the rights of your family -- your wife and two children. Practically every case we deal with on a human level is very sad. You are settled here. You have a young family, a good job. You are not in settled accommodation and you have health problems.
Regarding your accommodation, it does seem that you had problems with rent prior to your arrest on 7 March. I understand that once you told the authorities you were married, your benefits were cut. You have told me candidly that you were struggling to pay rent. In your proof, you said you have no siblings you can rely onto assist. It is clear that since your arrest, your wife and children have been looked after by friends, and your brother and her sister, I anticipate, can provide some assistance, if not financial assistance.
What this is all leading up to is that I am satisfied that there will be hardship caused to you and your wife and two children, but the law tells me hardship is not enough to defeat extradition. Every case is fact specific. The leading case that governs this is Norris where the court said that in order to succeed in this challenge, there would need to be "striking and unusual facts". And in the later case of B v District Court in Trutnov, the court said that Article 8 claims would rarely succeed...
At the end of the day, although you may be able to make an application for release halfway through your sentence, I have no information about whether that is likely to succeed. I have my doubts because of the previous conviction. Although there will be hardship, it is not enough.
Sadly, I have no alternative but to order your extradition. It is proportionate and necessary for me to do so."
"(2)There is no test of exceptionality in either context.
(3) The question is always whether the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and other members of his family is outweighed by the public interest in extradition.
(4) There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition: that people accused of crimes should be brought to trial; that people convicted of crimes should serve their sentences; that the United Kingdom should honour its treaty obligations to other countries; and that there should be no "safe havens" to which either can flee in the belief that they will not be sent back.
(5) That public interest will always carry great weight, but the weight to be attached to it in the particular case does vary according to the nature and seriousness of the crime or crimes involved.
(6) The delay since the crimes were committed may both diminish the weight to be attached to the public interest and increase the impact upon private and family life.
(7) Hence it is likely that the public interest in extradition will outweigh the article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe."
"The second main criticism of the approach in later cases is that the courts have not been examining carefully the nature and extent of the interference in family life. In focussing on "some quite exceptionally compelling feature" (para 56 in Norris), they have fallen into the trap identified by Lord Mance JSC, tending "to divert attention from consideration of the potential impact of extradition on the particular persons involved... towards a search for factors (particularly external factors) which can be regarded as out of the run of the mill" (para 109)."
That is the end of the quotation from Lord Mance. Baroness Hale went on:
"Some particularly grave consequences are not out of the run of the mill at all... we are all agreed on that."
"Nevertheless for the reasons explained in Norris the fulfilment of our international obligations remains an imperative. ZH (Tanzania) did not diminish that imperative. When resistance to extradition is advanced, as in effect it is in each of these appeals, on the basis of the article 8 entitlements of dependent children and the interests of society in their welfare, it should only be in very rare cases that extradition may properly be avoided if, given the same broadly similar facts, and after making proportionate allowance as we do for the interests of dependent children, the sentencing courts here would nevertheless be likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence: any other approach would be inconsistent with the principles of international comity."