Arkadiusz Celinski v Circuit Court in Lublin Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3877 (Admin) |
| Date | 19 December 2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/11527/2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3877 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/11527/2012
Mr M Grandison (instructed by Kingsley Wapley) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms H Hinton (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal from a decision of the Westminster Magistrates' Court that the appellant be extradited. He is sought by the Circuit Court in Lublin in Poland.
The warrant in this case is a conviction warrant and seeks the extradition of the appellant because of his offending under section 178a of the Polish Penal Code. He had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment by the Circuit Court in Lublin in November 2005. He had served some part of that sentence but was given leave to look after his sick mother. He failed to return to prison when he was obliged to do so but came to this country. He has some 9 months and 28 days left to serve. The warrant was issued because he failed to present himself to prison as required.
The offending involved a road traffic offence but the circumstances are, as described in the warrant, that the appellant was cycling when drunk. On the face of the warrant it is not clear as to whether he was present at the time of the hearing when he was convicted. The appellant had at least one previous offence for driving with excess alcohol. He also had an unrelated conviction for theft.
At the hearing before the judge in the Westminster Magistrates' Court he was unrepresented. Senior District Judge Riddle heard evidence from him, where he said that he had not attended prison when he was supposed to because his solicitor had told him that he could leave the jurisdiction. He also told the judge that he was not at his trial but his lawyer was.
Before me, an application is made to rely on further evidence. That includes a further statement from him, to which I will refer, and also a statement from his partner. She explains in her statement that she has been living with the appellant. As a result of his arrest in this country she has experienced financial difficulty and has in fact lost her accommodation. The test for admitting new evidence not adduced at the hearing is strict ( Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] 231 EWHC (Admin)). In this case, given that the appellant was not represented, it seems to me that the degree of latitude identified by Latham LJ in Miklis v Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 (Admin) ought to be afforded to this appellant.
The three grounds advanced by Mr Grandison in the appeal are, firstly, that there is a breach of Article 8. That relates in particular to the impact of the appellant's extradition on his partner but also the impact on his child in Poland. In my view, this ground gets nowhere and I need say no more about it.
The second ground is proportionality. Mr Grandison points out that in this country the offence of being in charge of a bicycle drunk could not lead to imprisonment. Under Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the maximum sentence that can be imposed for this sort of offence under section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for this sort of offence is a level 3 fine. Thus he submits that this is a relatively trivial offence and that there are exculpating circumstances because the appellant appears to suffer from alcohol dependency. He takes me to a passage in Inzunza and others v The Government of the United States of America [2011] EWHC 920 (Admin), paragraph 79, where Gross LJ said:
" In my view, this must be right [that was a reference to a previous decision of Ouseley J in R(Wilcox) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] EWHC 1483 (Admin)]: Although I do of course also agree with Mr Blaxland [who was representing the appellant in that case] that where the court in the requested state is required to assess whether a projected sentence in the requesting state is consistent with Article 3 or is grossly disproportionate, it must exercise its own judgment and not decide the matter solely on the application of deference to the laws of the requesting state."
Inzunza v United States was a case which arose in relation to a number of extradition orders relating to individuals who had committed serious crimes in the United States. One had been charged with a serious drugs importation offence, another with a murder and the third with a murder in the course of a robbery. The argument in that case was that the sentences to be imposed would violate Article 3 because, for example, there was a likelihood that, at least in the case of some of those being extradited, they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander Ioskevich v Government of the Russian Federation
... ... Case No: CO/4920/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ... In Celinski v Poland [2015] EWCH 124 , which was a Part 1 ... of Sedley LJ in Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 at paragraph ... ...
-
Cel-Mare v Romania
...Court in Torun, Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 3929. 14 In Arkadiusz Celinski v Circuit Court in Lublin, Poland [2012] EWHC 3877 (Admin) the extradition of a person for being drunk in charge of a bicycle, which was a minor motoring offence, had been ordered. Cranston J not......
-
Grzegorz Kolasinski v Regional Court in Gorzow (Poland)
... ... the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 and Poland v Celinski [2015] EWCA 1274 (Admin) ... 1.9 In HH, Lady Hale ... ...
-
Haladus v Regional Court of Law in Czestochowa (Poland)
... ... Minorczyk Appellant and Provincial Court Lublin (Poland) Respondent ... Mr Graeme L Hall ... Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 , HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25 and Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 ... 36 The ... ...