Damian Gajsler v Judicial Authority in Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Wilkie |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2015 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2015] EWHC J1118-2 |
| Date | 18 November 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4503/2015 |
[2015] EWHC J1118-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Wilkie
CO/4503/2015
Miss Laura Herbert (instructed by Freemans Solicitors, London WC1H 0HW) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Miss Emilie Pottle (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Wednesday 18 th November 2015
This case has been listed as the hearing of an appeal by Damian Gajsler against an extradition order made by the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 17 th September 2015 as a result of a reserved decision following a hearing on 20 th August 2015.
In introducing her judgment, the District Judge said, amongst other things:
i. "The details in the warrant comply with section 2 of the Act."
The details of the warrant contained, within Part B, a description of the decision on which the arrest warrant was based. Those were the hearings at which the court passed sentences on the appellant. There is nothing in that part of the warrant to suggest that the sentences that were passed were in fact suspended sentences. In part F of the warrant (other circumstances relevant to the case) there was reference to the nature of the original sentences. It reads:
i. "Decisions issued by the District Court … ordered the execution of the previously suspended penalties of deprivation of liberty in relation to sentenced Damian Gajsler, as he committed another offence in the probation period. The sentenced person did not appear to serve his sentence at the penal institution. He has been searched for by means of a National Arrest Warrant. The search has been ineffective so far. According to the information obtained, he is staying in the UK."
The District Judge noted that the only bar to extradition relied on was passage of time (section 14), although there was also raised an argument under section 20 and section 21. Neither of those latter issues has survived to the hearing of this appeal.
It was common ground before the District Judge that section 14 potentially provided a bar on the grounds of delay (passage of time) and that it would be oppressive to extradite the appellant. It does not appear to have loomed large in the argument precisely when it was that the suspended sentences were activated. At any rate, the District Judge felt that she had nonetheless to deal with it when considering how much time had elapsed. She therefore had to form a view as to how long the relevant passage of time had been. She came to a conclusion based on such information as she had that it was likely that the suspended sentences were not activated until 2012, which meant that the period of delay was relatively short.
It appears that the judicial authority had been asked to provide further information as to the details of when the suspended sentences were activated, but there was no information available on 20 th August. However, further information was provided. It came to the attention of those representing the Judicial Authority by about 28 th August, at a time when the District Judge was considering her reserved decision.
If that information is accurate, it meant that an assumption made by the District Judge, as reflected in her reserved decision that she should act on the basis that the suspended sentences were not activated until 2012, was erroneous and that the activation of the suspended sentences had...
To continue reading
Request your trial