Bober v Circuit Court Katowice (Poland)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Supperstone |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1409 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5245/2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 09 March 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1409 (Admin)
Mr Justice Supperstone
CO/5245/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr M Hawkes (instructed by Edward Hayes LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr N Hearn (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
The appellant appeals against the decision of District Judge Wright made on 23 October 2015 to order his extradition, pursuant to a mixed conviction/accusation EAW issued by a judge of the Circuit Court of Katowice in Poland on 23 February 2015, and certified by the NCA on 12 May 2015.
The accusation warrant relates to three offences: a domestic burglary of high value on 11 December 2001; a further domestic burglary, and the theft of a motor vehicle on 14 December 2001; and on 3 January 2002 the theft of a motor vehicle. The appellant pleaded guilty to those offences at the time he appeared in court, but the convictions were set aside on 21 August 2011 due to a procedural irregularity following an appeal.
The conviction warrant in respect of which the appellant was sentenced relates to 15 offences: (1) Case IV K 1853/O3, eight offences: in August 2002, he organised a prohibited act to be carried out by another, namely, the obtaining of a false registration certificate for a motor vehicle. In September 2002, a like offence. In October 2002, another like offence. In October/November 2002, a like offence.
On 18 September 2002, handling stolen goods: he sold a motor vehicle which had altered registration marks. On 8 November 2002, the same offence, with a different vehicle.
On the same date he was in possession of a forged driving licence with intent to use it. Between 3 and 5 December 2002, handling stolen goods by selling a vehicle knowing it was stolen.
(2) Case 893/031 (one offence): between October 2002 and January 2003 he stored and concealed stolen items. (3) Case II K 11699/02 (one offence): on 27 March 2002, he assisted in concealing a BMW motor vehicle knowing it to be stolen. (4) Case III K 569/05 (one offence): on 27 March 2002, he was in possession of a gas gun without a licence (offence 14). (5) Case VII K557/07 (one offence): between 10 August and 23 October 2002, he received a stolen Rover motor vehicle, (offence 15). These offences were originally dealt with individually and the overall sentence was one in excess of 13 years.
Subsequently, the appellant applied to the Polish court to have the sentences aggregated. The overall aggregated sentence was revised to 6 years and 4 months on 21 November 2011. Taking into account the time that the appellant has spent in custody, he has a total of 8 months left to serve of that sentence.
The issues raised at the full hearing on 19 October 2015, when the appellant was represented by Mr Katz, were under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, passage of time, and Article 8. (I am informed by Mr Hawkes, who appears for the appellant today, that Mr Katz is a solicitor who specialises in extradition work).
The District Judge noted at paragraph 6 of her judgment that the appellant had indicated that in relation to the possession of the gas gun (offence 14), he would be raising an issue of dual criminality, but on the day of the hearing, he indicated that he no longer intended to pursue that argument.
Subsequent to his order for extradition on the instant warrant the appellant was arrested pursuant to a second warrant. Following a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court, his extradition was ordered on 29 January 2016 in respect of 16 offences of armed robbery and theft.
On 15 January 2016, Cranston J refused permission to appeal in relation to the District Judge's decision on the first warrant on the papers. On 12 February, following an oral hearing, Wyn Williams J granted permission limited to two grounds: (1), the dual criminality argument for offence 14; and (2) whether section 2 of the Extradition Act had been properly complied with relating to offence 15.
The parties are agreed that if the appellant succeeds in persuading the court that one or both offences fail to comply with the requirements of the 2003 Act, the appropriate course is for him to be discharged in respect of those offences only.
In relation to offence 14, Mr Hawkes submits that there is no information in the EAW to indicate whether the gas gun, which is described as a "RECK G5" is capable of firing any projectile or causing more than a trifling injury.
Since a gas gun by default is considered to be a blank firing weapon (typically used at sporting events) Mr Hawkes submits that absent express evidence to displace that presumption, a gas gun cannot be considered to be a firearm pursuant to the definition in English Law under section 57(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
As I have said, the appellant was legally represented at the extradition hearing, and the District Judge noted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigtion Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)
...that she was in Spain at the material times, and an evidenced Spanish conviction for a December 2015 offence (cf. Bober v Poland [2016] EWHC 1409 (Admin) §34). The Respondent is wrong on this appeal now to rely on “Cajastur” as a Spanish sounding name (cf. Bober §33). As to the EAW/SI/FI, ......