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 >> Ossowski v Regional Court in Slupsk, Poland [2015] EWHC 690 (Admin) (18 February 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/690.html
Cite as: [2015] EWHC 690 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| OSSOWSKI | Appellant | |
| -v- | ||
| REGIONAL COURT IN SLUPSK, POLAND | Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS M WESTCOTT (instructed by THE CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: The appellant, who is now aged 28, appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Ikram, made on 5 December 2014 to order his extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued on 1 March 2013 and certified by SOCA on 17 May 2013 to face an allegation of theft of a wallet on 5 May 2010 whilst on license for a similar offence. The appellant was questioned and charged with the offence on 20 May 2010 and the day afterwards left Poland. The appellant was arrested on 8 June 2014. Having originally been granted conditional bail, he was remanded in custody on 4 November 2014 having breached his curfew condition by cutting off his electronic tag.
- The issues at the extradition hearing related to the passage of time and whether extradition was compatible with the appellant's Article 8 rights. The appellant gave evidence during the course of the hearing.
- In his thorough judgment the District Judge stated that he was sure that the appellant was a fugitive and thus barred from relying upon delay and that, in any event, if that was wrong, the appellant had not shown on the balance of probabilities that his extradition would be unjust or oppressive. The judge also found that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights.
- Grounds of appeal were originally lodged in respect of both of those issues. However, Miss Draycott on the appellant's behalf has appeared before me this morning and frankly indicated that advice had been given that no proper argument can be advanced in respect of either ground. In those circumstances she invites me to dismiss the appeal, with which, unsurprisingly, the respondent agrees. In those circumstances, no argument being advanced in support of the appeal, it is dismissed.
- Again, I take it there is nothing else to do?
- MISS DRAYCOTT: No.
- MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: Thank you.