QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
|- and -|
|POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY||Respondent|
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
This transcript has been approved by the Judge
MS LOUISA COLLINS (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
MRS JUSTICE FARBEY:
The district judge's judgment
"The further information from the district prosecutor concedes he was never cautioned by the authorities about any obligation to inform them of his whereabouts or the fact he was not permitted to leave Poland. However, I do find that the RP had some awareness of the offences for which he is now wanted for prosecution at the time he left Poland in 2011. Despite his evidence that he was not hiding from the authorities after 2004 when the investigation started, he had already moved to Wroclaw, he had been convicted by the District Court in Swidnica of fraud for which he was on a suspended sentence under supervision and the further information from the JA states he was wanted by the District Court in Swidnica. I find the RP's own evidence in relation to his recollection of events unreliable. He seemed to have an awareness of the details of the incident for which he was wanted for prosecution and I place greater weight on the information provided by the JA about the RP's knowledge of the criminal conduct alleged and in particular that he was wanted by the Court in connection with another case."
"Albeit the value of the fraud is relatively small, there was financial loss caused to five individuals and the satellite company."
"A person's extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if (and only if) it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have -
(a) committed the extradition offence (where he is accused of its commission), or
(b) become unlawfully at large (where he is alleged to have been convicted of it)."
"(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11), the judge must decide both of the following questions in respect of the extradition of the person ('D') -
(a) whether the extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998;
(b) whether the extradition would be disproportionate.
(2) In deciding whether the extradition would be disproportionate, the judge must take into account the specified matters relating to proportionality (so far as the judge thinks it appropriate to do so); but the judge must not take any other matters into account.
(3) These are the specified matters relating to proportionality -
(a) the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence;
(b) the likely penalty that would be imposed if D was found guilty of the extradition offence;
(c) the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures that would be less coercive than the extradition of D.
(4) The judge must order D's discharge if the judge makes one or both of these decisions -
(a) that the extradition would not be compatible with the Convention rights;
(b) that the extradition would be disproportionate."
"(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The parties' submissions