QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MARIUSZ KROLOKOWSKI |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
DISTRICT COURT IN LEGNICA (POLAND) |
Respondent |
____________________
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
Hearing date: 27th April 2021
Judgment as delivered in open court at the hearing
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE FORDHAM :
Introduction
Mode of hearing
Article 3 (prison conditions): Stay
(1) The application for permission to amend the Appeal Notice to add the Article 3 (prison conditions) ground in Litwinczuk CO/3399/2020, Lukaszek CO/3852/2020 and Tadaszak CO/3941/2020 ("the Article 3 Cases") is stayed pending final determination of the Article 3 Cases by the High Court. The Appellant shall, within 14 days following the date of that final determination (a) inform the Court and the Respondent whether he intends to pursue an application for permission to appeal on that ground and (b) if so file and serve written submissions in support.(2) In the event that the Appellant, within 14 days following final determination of the Article 3 cases, informs the Court that he does intend to pursue an application for permission to appeal on the Article 3 ground, that application shall be determined on the papers by a Judge as soon as practicable thereafter. Otherwise, the application for permission to appeal shall be dismissed 14 days after final determination of the Article 3 cases.
(3) The parties have liberty to apply, in writing on notice, to vary or discharge paragraphs (1) or (2) of this Order.
The purpose of liberty to apply is twofold. First, it protects the Respondent who should have the opportunity to consider the position in the present case and, if it wishes to do so, to apply to vary or set aside my order. Secondly, it protects both parties in case there is some subsequent development rendering a different order more apt.
Article 8
(4) Permission to appeal on the Article 8 ECHR ground is granted.(5) The substantive appeal shall have a revised time estimate of one hour and shall be listed for the first available date after 14 July 2021.
(6) The Respondent shall have liberty to apply in writing on notice to vary paragraph (5) of this Order.
The reason for choosing 14 July 2021 is because that strikes a sensible balance, in my judgment, to ensure that the Wozniak and Article 3 (prison conditions) position has settled, and its implications considered and resolved, and because it gives a pragmatic time-frame given the Beczer/Krzyanowski deferred discharge outcome which, on the face of it, is a looming possible resolution of this case. It is possible, I do not know, that common ground may emerge as to that resolution. The reason for a specific liberty to apply to the Respondent is to allow it an opportunity to urge a different timescale for this case, if the Respondent considers there to be justification for doing so. I have considered whether it would be more appropriate to direct today that any Wozniak or Article 3 (prison conditions) follow-up submissions be considered by the Judge dealing with the substantive Article 8 hearing, but: (a) I think that those matters, were they to arise, will be most efficiently dealt with on paper alongside other lookalike cases in the pile; (b) I see no reason to disturb Eady J's order as to Wozniak; and (c) as to Article 3 the parties have their liberty to apply in paragraph (3) of my Order by which they could ask the Court to revisit my paragraph (2), if there is some basis or development which they consider justify doing so.
27.4.21