QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| MATEUSZ KONRAD ZAKREWSKI
|- and -
|REGIONAL COURT IN WARSAW, POLAND
Julia Farrant (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 21 October 2015
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Irwin :
" infringed non-intentionally the safety regulations in road traffic in such a way that he did not take up due precautions lost control over the vehicle he was driving and then he hit a fence, a gate and an entrance gate causing unintentionally body injuries of the passenger such as a multi organ injury with the brake (sic) of right limb and L1 vertebra."
The warrant goes on to recite that the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment with a conditional suspension for a probation period of three years. On 11 August 2009 he was ordered to serve the sentence. On the Appellant's own account, this was because he was stopped on suspicion of drink driving.
"It is true that, the length of time that has elapsed since the date of the alleged offence is quite big. Mateusz Zakrzewski had alleged offence in 2007 year. The problem is that, when the case was send (sic) to district court of Warsaw Zoliborz it was 2010. Before this date, the case was in two different courts, which decided that the case should not be judged in their district. District court of Warsaw Zoliborz on 1 February 2011 decided to arrest Mateusz Zakrzewski because he did not come to court to hearing him several times. The Polish police informed court, that he left Poland.
The EAW was issued in the date 21 of April 2011 and between the period of passing a decision connected with arresting Mateusz Zakrzewski and the EAW was only one year, during this time the police was looking for the defendant in Poland. The police checked the place where Mateusz Zakrzewski lived then they started to look for him in whole Poland.
During this time Mateusz Zakrzewski did not contact with court. He was instructed during the investigation that he has obligation to inform police, prosecutor and than court of any changing of the address and place of living."
"A combination of the delay of nearly 4 years before the requesting court issued a warrant and a non-domestic burglary (albeit of a pharmacy, but cash not drugs were taken) persuade me that a judge might consider, particularly having regard to the Article 8 circumstances, that the DJ's decision was wrong."
The Approach to Two Cases Heard Together on Appeal
"10. it seems to me that given that the appellant is now to be extradited under the conviction warrant the balance in relation to Article 8 changes, as does consideration of oppression in section 14. The reality is the impact of extradition under this second warrant is much diminished since the appellant will be extradited to Poland to serve a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months' imprisonment in the near future under the first warrant. If there were any doubts about how the balance came out prior to the decision refusing permission to appeal on the first warrant, they now fall away. It is clear to me that applying the analysis required by Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski  EWHC 1274 (Admin), Article 8 does not operate as a bar to the appellant's extradition. Nor can I conclude that it would be oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time. Given the fact of the appellant's extradition under the first warrant there is no need to go into the detail."
"She is currently under our weekly post-transplant follow-up which will continue for the next few months. She is likely to remain imunocompromised for at least twelve months post transplant. This is a complex medical treatment which comes with about a 20 per cent risk to her life over the next twelve months."
"22. The RP's article 8 rights and those of his wife, his mother and his young daughter are clearly engaged in particular his right to a family life. The factor that weighs most heavily in favour of discharge is the ill health of his mother, who suffers from a rare form of cancer requiring a bone marrow transplant and lengthy and unpleasant convalescence. I recognise this will be adversely effected by an order for extradition and that in an ideal world he would stay and assist it that recovery along with his wife. The evidence on the point did not go so far as to suggest that that recovery would be delayed or interfered with in the event of extradition and his wife is fit and healthy and capable of providing the practical and emotional support required and where gaps may appear in that care his mother is under the care of University Hospital Birmingham who will ensure appropriate care is provided. In relation to the daughter she is again well and apart from the obvious and unavoidable hardship that extradition would cause nothing in this case shows that hardship to be severe. Clearly finances will be tight if he is extradited but the welfare state will support the family through the benefits system. What is suggested is that because of her illness his mother will not be in a position to assist his wife with their daughter's upbringing. That is true but I have no evidence that his wife could not cope on her own just like many others who for whatever reason find themselves as a single parent.
I therefore conclude that the interference will be such so that the child will not suffer significant hardship and will be provided an appropriate environment to be brought up in.
23. Having undertaken the balancing exercise and weighed factors for against those against extradition I conclude that the factors in favour of discharge DO NOT outweigh those in favour of extradition. The interference with her limited article 8 rights is proportionate and I therefore reject this bar."