Adam Sebastian Baranowski v Polish Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3246 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4044/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2021] EWHC 3246 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/4044/2021
George Hepburne Scott (instructed by Bark & Co Solicitors) for the Applicant
Reka Hollos (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 1/12/21
Judgment as delivered in open court at the hearing
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Note: This judgment was produced for the parties, approved by the Judge, after using voice-recognition software during an ex tempore judgment.
This is an application for bail in an extradition case. The case was listed for a remote hearing for the same reasons which I explained in Boguszewski [2021] EWHC 3241 (Admin) at §2. Both Counsel were satisfied, as was and am I, that this mode of hearing by Ms Teams involved no prejudice to the interests of their clients. The interests of justice have been promoted. The case had to be put back but we were able to keep all interested observers informed by email. The interests of open justice were also secured in the usual way: the case and its start time were published in the cause list, together with an email address usable by any member of the press or public who wished to observe the hearing.
I will deal at the outset was one of the features of this case. When he was arrested on 24 August 2021 no passport or identity document was forthcoming from the Applicant. That gave rise to a concern, properly raised with the court by the Respondent, relevant to bail. The concern was whether the Applicant may be concealing a passport or identity document that he would then be able to use to leave the country were he released on bail. I am satisfied, for the purposes of assessing risk on this application for bail, that it would not be appropriate or just to hold against the Applicant any concern on that score. He had said that his wallet had been stolen in September 2020 and that theft was the reason why no ‘passport’ was available to be given to the authorities. Documents which have been provided to this court evidence: that the police held a wallet in his name together with an ‘identity document’ as at November 2020; and that as at August 2021 those items had been destroyed having never been collected from the police. That supports the Applicant so far as any ‘identity card’ is concerned. It also supports his truthfulness regarding the description that he was giving. There is, on the face of it, no discrepancy so far as concerns an application for pre-settled status (which would have needed to be supported by a passport or identity document), since his evidence describes that status as having been secured prior to the wallet being lost. The only remaining loose end is as to whether he understood himself to be asked on arrest about a ‘passport’ rather than an ‘identity card’ and whether he has ever held a passport and may be concealing one. I accept of course that a passport is different from an identity card, the latter having been usable for travel within the EU. But in all the circumstances I see no proper basis for any adverse inference or risk factor being held against the Applicant so far as a possibly concealed passport is concerned, in circumstances where his truthfulness has been vindicated in relation to the identity card. I therefore put to one side this feature of the case, properly raised with the Court though it was.
The Applicant is aged 44 and is wanted for extradition to Poland. That is in conjunction with a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued on 8 September 2020 and certified on 30 July 2021. Pursuant to that EAW he is wanted to serve a sentence of five years imprisonment. The index offending was an offence of driving while intoxicated and disqualified. On the material before the court the position is said to be this. The original sentence was two years imprisonment which was the subject of successful appeal and was reopened. The five year sentence subsequently imposed is recorded to have been in the context of the Applicant's previous convictions including within the previous six months for an ‘intentional similar offence’. There is also a circumstance relating to a psychiatric report and a question of non-compliance. The Applicant had come to the United Kingdom in 2017 and had returned to Poland for his appeal hearing in 2018. In his evidence he has accepted that he subsequently did not comply with a court order requirement to have a psychiatric assessment, that being the circumstance to which I have just referred. The ultimate sentence of 5 years was imposed in his absence when he was back in the UK. Bail has been refused on a number of occasions in the magistrates' court. This Court's function is to consider bail “afresh”, as I do.
The case for bail advanced by Mr Hepburne Scott on behalf of the Applicant emphasises the following features in particular. The Applicant has been in the United Kingdom since 2017 and has lived here...
To continue reading
Request your trial