Extradition Request By The Republic Of Poland In Respect Of Robert Labutin
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff J. Douglas Allan |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 06 August 2008 |
| Published date | 02 September 2008 |
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN & BORDERS at EDINBURGH
Case reference No 2B 715/2008
| JUDGEMENT OF SHERIFF J DOUGLAS ALLAN Sheriff of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh in EXTRADITION REQUEST by THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND District Court in Koszalin 11 Penal Department in respect of ROBERT LABUTIN (DOB: 28.05.78) Prisoner in the Prison of Edinburgh, ACCUSED ____________ |
For the Lord Advocate: Mr David Dickson, Crown Office International Co-operation Unit
For the Accused: Unrepresented Party
EDINBURGH, 6 August 2008.
The Sheriff, having heard representations on behalf of both parties and having, in terms of the Extradition Act, 2003, decided:
that the offences specified in the Part 1 Warrant are Extradition offences [section 10(2)];
that the extradition of Robert Labutin to the Republic of Poland, being a category 1 territory, is not barred by reason of any of the circumstances set out in section 11(1)(a) to (j) of said Act [section 11(1)];
that quoad case 11K86/03, Robert Labutin, who is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of that Extradition offence, was convicted in his presence [section 20(1) and (2)];
that, quoad cases 11K86/03 and 11K861/05 the extradition of Robert Labutin would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 [section 21(1)];
Therefore, in terms of section 21 (3) of the Extradition Act 2003, Orders Robert Labutin to be extradited to the Republic of Poland, being the Category 1 territory in which said European Arrest warrant was issued.
J Douglas Allan.
NOTE
Introduction
1. In this case, the Republic of Poland seeks the Extradition of the accused Mr Labutin under the provisions of Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"). The Republic of Poland is a "category 1 territory" for the purposes of Part 1. The request follows the issue on 15 April 2008 of a European Arrest Warrant by the District Court Judge of the District Court in Koszalin in the Republic of Poland in respect of [case 11K 86/03] convictions and sentence for offences of the sale of drugs, and [case 861/05] temporary arrest/detention in connection with the investigation of an alleged offence of, along with another person, by the use of threats forcing an under age person to have sexual intercourse, all contrary to specified Articles of the Polish Penal Code.
2. The accused appeared for the first time in this court on 4 July 2008 and, with representation by a solicitor, declined to consent to Extradition. An extradition hearing was set for 16 July 2008 but, at a preliminary hearing on 11 July at which the accused was again represented by his solicitor, that hearing was discharged and 6 August was fixed instead. On 6 August 2008, I was informed that the accused was declining to accept the advice of his solicitor and was withdrawing an indication he had previously given that he would consent to his return in terms of the said warrant. His solicitor was accordingly allowed to withdraw from acting and the accused indicated that he wished to oppose his return under the said warrant and would represent himself.
3. I therefore heard submissions from Mr Dickson on behalf of the Lord Advocate and from the accused Mr Labutin - although Mr Labutin confined himself to submissions in connection with Section 21 of the 2003 Act and, in particular, his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Extradition Offence
4. From the information contained in the European Arrest Warrant, it was clear that there were two offences and two warrants involved. The one numbered 11K 861/05 involved an allegation of the use of threats to force an underage person to have sexual intercourse. This offence involved a maximum penalty of 15 years of imprisonment. The terms of Section 64(3) of the 2003 Act were met in that the conduct occurred in the category 1 territory, the conduct concerned would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom - namely either rape or a contravention of Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, and the conduct was punishable in the category 1 territory with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or more. I was accordingly satisfied that this was an extradition offence and that the question in section 10 (2) of the 2003 Act should be answered in the affirmative. The second offence and warrant was numbered 11K 86/03 and involved a conviction relating to the sale of drugs, in respect of which a sentence of two years imprisonment had been imposed and all of that sentence remained to be served. The terms of section 65(3) of the 2003 Act were met in that the conduct occurred in the category 1 territory, the conduct concerned would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom - namely at least a contravention of Section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the sentence of imprisonment which had been imposed in respect of the conduct was greater than 4 months. I was accordingly satisfied that this also was an extradition offence and that the question in section 10(2) of the 2003 Act should also be answered in the affirmative. Section 10(4) of the 2003 Act then directed me to proceed under Section 11 thereof.
Section 11 of the 2003 Act - Bars to Extradition
5. For the Lord Advocate, Mr Dickson submitted that there were no bars to extradition. I noted that the first warrant had been issued on 5 May 2004 and the second one had been issued on 7 April 2006. The European Arrest Warrant disclosed that it had been impossible to execute the penalty since Mr Labutin was absent at his stated address...
To continue reading
Request your trial