District Court in Krakow, Poland v Kamil Pultorak
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Julian Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2777 (Admin) |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1814/2022 |
[2023] EWHC 2777 (Admin)
Mr Justice Julian Knowles
Case No: CO/1814/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Catherine Brown (instructed by CPS) for the Appellant
Martin Henley (instructed by AM International Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 17 January 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 15 November 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Introduction
This is an appeal by the Appellant (the Requesting Judicial Authority) with the permission of Hill J.
The Respondent's extradition has been requested pursuant to two arrest warrants, as follows:
a. III Kop 62/20: this conviction warrant was issued on 9 June 2020 and certified by the NCA on 3 February 2021. It seeks the surrender of the Respondent in order to execute a custodial sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment, of which all but one day remains to be served. The warrant states in Box D that the Respondent appeared at his trial. The offending comprises of one offence of a joint enterprise assault, committed on 30 January 2016.
b. III Kop 49/21: this accusation warrant was issued on 29 April 2021 and certified by the NCA on 20 May 2021. The warrant seeks the surrender of the Respondent to prosecute him for one offence of murder by stabbing said to have been committed on 10 June 2017. A maximum sentence of life imprisonment is set out in the warrant. The district judge ordered the Respondent's surrender in respect of this Warrant. The Respondent lodged an application for permission to appeal in respect of the order for his extradition ( CO/1828/2022). Permission to appeal was refused by Hill J and the application was not renewed.
Following an extradition hearing under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003), on 18 May 2022 the district judge discharged the Respondent in respect of the conviction warrant. This appeal is brought against that decision. Extradition was ordered in respect of the murder accusation warrant and an application for permission to appeal was refused by Hill J and not renewed
It follows that even if this appeal is unsuccessful, the Respondent is liable to be extradited to Poland to stand trial for murder.
Procedural history
The procedural history is as follows (italicised entries come from further information from Poland submitted after the extradition hearing which the district judge did not consider (see below)):
Factual background
| 30 January 2016 | The assault offence in the conviction warrant was committed. The Respondent, along with a group of others, were involved in an attack on another person causing him personal injury. The attack was perpetrated with weapons including a machete and tear gas. |
| 9 February 2016 | Respondent arrested and interviewed and charged with the assault offence on the conviction warrant. Released on conditions, including not to travel abroad. |
| 16 June 2016 | Interviewed again. |
| 31 January 2017 | Respondent present at first hearing in the assault matter. |
| 10 June 2017 | Offence of murder in the accusation warrant was committed. Shorty afterwards the Respondent leaves Poland and enters the UK. |
| 22 June 2017 | The Respondent did not appear at the next hearing in the assault matter on this date, despite being served notice of the trial date. He was represented in court by his counsel. |
| 10 May 2018 | The Respondent did not appear at the next hearing in the assault matter, despite being served notice of the trial date (there were two attempted deliveries of the notification which failed). He was represented in court by his counsel, however, his counsel terminated his powers of representation. |
| 4 June 2018 | The Respondent was not present for the next hearing in the assault matter. He had not been served with notice of that day as the proceedings had been put on hold, rather than adjourned, following his failure to attend on 10 May. The trial was ‘closed’, and the sentencing was deferred until 18 June 2018. |
| 9 June 2020 | The conviction warrant was issued. |
| 3 February 2021 | The conviction warrant was certified. |
| 3 February 2021 | The Respondent was arrested in the UK pursuant to the previous version of the murder accusation warrant. |
| 23 March 2021 | The Respondent was arrested in England pursuant to the conviction warrant. The initial hearing took place in respect of that warrant (and the previous version of the murder accusation warrant). District Judge Zani discharged the Respondent in respect of the murder accusation warrant pursuant to s 4 of the EA 2003 as the Respondent had not been produced before him in a timely fashion. Preliminary matters were resolved in favour of the Appellant in respect of the conviction warrant. At that time, the Respondent had ongoing domestic matters and so the case was adjourned pursuant to s 8A. |
| 29 April 2021 | III Kop 49/21 issued. |
| 20 May 2021 | III Kop 49/21 certified. |
| 16 June 2021 | The Respondent was arrested pursuant to III Kop 49/21. The initial hearing took place the same day, preliminary issues were resolved in favour of the Appellant and the case was adjourned under s 8A. |
| 9 July 2021 | The Respondent was sentenced at Harrow Crown Court to six months' imprisonment for possession of CS spray (deemed time served). The Crown offered no evidence in respect of possession with intent to supply class B drugs. Consequently, the domestic matters were concluded. |
| 4 July 2021 | The case was brought back before the extradition court for consent to be put. Consent was put and refused in respect of both warrants. The extradition hearing was listed and directions were set. |
| 5 April 2022 | The case came before District Judge Calloway for extradition hearing. The case was adjourned to 18 May 2022 for judgment. |
| 9 May 2022 | Further information from the Appellant served by the CPS to the court and the Respondent's solicitor asking that it be adduced. The district judge replies that an application to reopen would need to be made by the CPS on notice to the Respondent. No such application is made. |
| 18 May 2022 | Judgment was handed down. The Respondent's discharge was ordered in respect of the conviction warrant and his extradition was ordered in respect of the accusation warrant. |
| 21 September 2022 | Permission to appeal granted by Hill J in respect of the conviction warrant and refused in respect of the accusation warrant (and application not then renewed). |
The relevant background is as follows.
The district judge summarised the bars being relied upon by the Respondent at [10] and said at [10(ii)] ( sic):
“s.20 EA 2003 Conviction in Absence: (This head of challenge is raised in relation to the assault conviction alone. In short it is contended that far from the being present at the specified date on the 18 th June 2018, the RP asserts he left the JA in June 2017. This fact is said to be corroborated by the Further Information served in relation to the murder allegation and supports the case deployed on behalf of the RP.”
The judge dealt with this challenge at [15] onwards. At [21] et seq he said ( sic):
“21. The JA make the short point that the RP was present for his trial and the contents of the EAW are unambiguous. By comment concerning the assertion maintained by the RP to the effect that case happened in his absence, the JA maintain that this is not a clear assertion, is based upon supposition and the court should not go behind the clear wording of the EAW regarding presence of the RP at the trial following which he was convicted.
22. The RP points out within his submissions, however. that the details within the EAW are contradicted by the details set forth within the Further Information supplied in connection with the murder allegation. The sequence of events is as follows:
(i). RP asserts that he departed the JA in June 2017.
(ii). A murder, and in respect of which the RP is said to be involved, occurred on the 10 th June 2017.
(iii). The RP is said not to have been questioned in respect of the murder allegation since he departed the JA immediately after committing the murder offence
(iv). The trial which is the subject of EAW 1 took place in June 2018.
23. The basic contention made by the RP is that the submission does not depend upon the contention of the RP as to his absence at any trial, but is predicated upon the information supplied by the JA which corroborates the assertion of absence which he maintains. As a straight matter of fact this appears to me to be a correct analysis.
24. The next question I must address is what further details should be sought from the JA in order to deal with the lacuna as appropriate. In short do I seek further information in order to establish how the RP was present in person at the trial and further details appertaining thereto?
25. I take the point made by the RP that the lacuna which found this head of challenge was identified within the Statement of Issues and the RP was arrested over 14 months ago, and no adjournment has been sort in order to seek further information or clarification.
26. In my judgment it would not be appropriate to seek further information appertaining to the contradiction in the JA material and to delay these proceedings further than they have already been delayed. However. there is another aspect of consideration about which I should comment and that is the accusation of murder contained within EAW 2. Naturally, the challenges in relation to this aspect of the case I shall determine entirely separately, but given the serious nature of that allegation, I do not think further time should be expended...
To continue reading
Request your trial