Borowski v District Court in Bielsko-biala Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 540 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/12549/2012 |
| Date | 12 February 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 540 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Collins
CO/12549/2012
MS A NICE (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR J SMITH (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Coleman, who directed the return of the appellant to Poland to face prosecution for a number of offences. Essentially what was alleged was what can be called a red diesel fraud, that is the dishonest evasion of VAT in relation to the use of diesel, which is only allowed to be used without paying the necessary duty or tax for specific purposes. In addition, there was a third offence, which alleged money laundering in relation to the proceeds improperly obtained from the fraud. The fraud itself, under this warrant, was alleged to have been committed between May and September 2004.
On its face, there is nothing wrong with this warrant. The difficulty has arisen because there was a second warrant, which in fact was dealt with earlier, which alleged the same offences, in the sense that they were contrary to the same provisions of the relevant code in Poland but related to instances on one date only in July 2004. They were in fact one overt act, if one likes to consider it in terms of an overall conspiracy, in furtherance of that conspiracy. The overall conspiracy is reflected in what is alleged in EAW2, as I shall call it, which is the one before me. The incident relied on, or the actual dishonesty involved, which is the use of a forged instrument, which is covered by EAW1, was issued from a different prosecuting authority than the authority responsible for EAW2. The actual forgery was not a matter which was relied on in EAW2. It looks as if there was not the liaison between the two prosecuting authorities that would have been desirable, and I put it no higher, and it seems that those responsible for EAW1 were aware only of the single transaction, no doubt one committed within their jurisdiction, and the wider picture was known to those responsible for EAW2 but it seems they were not aware of the single dishonest use of a forged instrument which is covered by EAW1.
There is thus clearly a considerable overlap between the two warrants. Enquiries were made of the prosecuting authority in Poland to see what the position would be were he to be extradited. In fact the information was given by the authority responsible for EAW2. There has been a degree of clarification required but the final decision, dated 6 July 2012, was before District Judge Coleman, his decision being given on 19 November 2012. What was said was this:
"(1) It has been agreed between the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Wloclawek and the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Bielsko-Biala that the proceedings against the appellant will be combined.
"(2) After the proceedings are combined, the regional prosecutor's office in Bielsko-Biala will have responsibility for the case.
"(3) In the case against the appellant, one substantive decision will be made by the regional prosecutor's office in Bielsko-Biala, their proceedings having a broader material scope.
"(4) The Jaroslaw Borowski is of no risk of being punished twice for the same offence.
"(5) We have been informed by the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Bielsko-Biala that, in the case of the indictment against the appellant is filed in accordance with...
To continue reading
Request your trial