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 >>
Jedrzeijewski v Regional Court in Warsaw Poland [2014] EWHC 4461 (Admin) (26 November 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4461.html
Cite as:
[2014] EWHC 4461 (Admin)
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4461 (Admin) |
|
|
CO/4667/2014 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
|
|
Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
|
|
|
26 November 2014 |
B e f o r e :
SIR STEPHEN SILBER
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
____________________
Between:
|
JEDRZEIJEWSKI |
Appellant |
|
v |
|
|
REGIONAL COURT IN WARSAW POLAND |
Respondent |
____________________
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Mr N Hearn (instructed by Gordon Shine & Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms L MacKinnon (instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- SIR STEPHEN SILBER: Marek Jedrzewski appeals against an order made at the Westminster Magistrates Court on 6 October 2014 by which his extradition to Poland was ordered pursuant to a request by the Regional Court in Warsaw which issued a European Arrest Warrant on 27 February 2012. This warrant is conviction European Arrest Warrant which seeks the appellant's extradition to enforce an outstanding sentence of 5 years and 28 days' imprisonment imposed for an offence of possessing a small amount of cannabis, namely 0.39 grams on 29 December 2005. It seems clear that he initially received a suspended sentence which was imposed on him on 22 February 2006 but it was activated a few weeks later on 11 March 2006.
- The appellant pursues a single ground of appeal which was that the district judge ought not to have ordered his extradition because that would amount to a disproportionate interference with his private life, pursuant to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- As is common ground, the relevant authorities, which show how this court should deal with a case where a requested person asserts that an order for extradition will breach his article 8 rights, firstly Norris v United States (No2) [2010] 2 AC 487 and, more recently, in the case of HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic of Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 where Baroness Hale stated in paragraph 8 that :
i. "We can, therefore, draw the following conclusions from Norris:
(2) There may be a closer analogy between extradition and the domestic criminal process than between extradition and deportation or expulsion, but the court has still to examine carefully the way in which it will interfere with family life.
(3) There is no test of exceptionality in either context.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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."
- She then developed her further approach to it at paragraph 30:
i. "In answering that question, the court would be well advised to adopt the same structured approach to an article 8 case as would be applied by the Strasbourg court. First, it asks whether there is or will be an interference with the right to respect for private and family life. Second, it asks whether that interference is in accordance with the law and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims within those listed in article 8.2. Third, it asks whether the interference is "necessary in a democratic society" in the sense of being a proportionate response to that legitimate aim. In answering that all-important question it will weigh the nature and gravity of the interference against the importance of the aims pursued. In other words, the balancing exercise is the same in each context: what may differ are the nature and weight of the interests to be put into each side of the scale."
- It is common ground between the parties that honouring the extradition arrangements would interfere with the appellant's article 8 rights. The only issue that remains outstanding is whether the appellant can rely on article 8(2). In other words, the issue that has to be considered is whether an order for the requested person's extradition is a proportionate response to the legitimate aim that has been identified.
- In clear and helpful submissions, Miss MacKinnon on behalf of the judicial authority refers me to the fact that this country has an obligation under the framework directive to honour sentences imposed by the requesting state. She accepts that this is a relatively minor offence but she submits that it has to be looked at in the light of the previous conviction to which the appellant has referred in his witness statement and the fact that this has become much more serious because the appellant was originally given a conditional order which was later activated.
- Those submissions have to reconsidered upon the basis that this offence could only described as being trivial. That is an important factor because in the statement made by Baroness Hale in HH she did make the point in paragraph 8(5) the public interest to be attached to an extradition request will vary according to the nature and seriousness of the crime involved. In this case, that public interest is at a minimal level. Another difficulty confronting the judicial authrity is that these offences took place 9 years ago, when the appellant, who is now 29, would have been about 20 years of age.
- There again, Baroness Hale said at paragraph 8(6) that the delay since the crimes were committed may both diminish the weight you attach to the public interest and increase the impact on private life. Another factor weighing against ordering extradition is that the appellant had been in custody for more than two months.
- An additional point is there would appear there has been some delay in this case but overall, when all those factors are put into the balance, I have come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the public interest in upholding extradition requests, the cumulative effect of the matters to which I have referred render an order for extradition disproportionate in the particular and very unusual circumstances of this case. In those circumstances, this appeal has to be allowed.