Gajsler v Judicial Authority in Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Singh |
| Judgment Date | 17 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 3245 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4503/2015 |
| Date | 17 August 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 3245 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Singh
CO/4503/2015
Miss Laura Herbert (instructed by Freemans) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Ben Isaacs (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Introduction
This is an appeal brought with the permission of Mr Justice Ouseley granted on 27 October 2015 against the decision of the magistrates' court by which the appellant's extradition was ordered. By that decision, which was made on 17 September 2015, District Judge Rose ordered the appellant's extradition pursuant to a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued by the Polish authorities on 19 May 2014 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 23 June 2014. The warrant relates to three offences committed between 2000 and 2006. The first offence was one of attempted robbery committed on 31 August 2000. The second was an offence of criminal damage committed on 24 March 2006. The third was an offence of assault committed on 13 October 2003.
As things stand at present, the appellant would have a total sentence of just under four years' imprisonment to serve in Poland if extradited. Originally the sentences were suspended, but the appellant breached the conditions of the suspended sentences and subsequently in 2008 domestic warrants were issued in Poland. It is therefore common ground before me that the appellant became unlawfully at large from 17 June 2008. It is also common ground that for the purposes of the issue in this appeal, which relates only to section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and in particular whether there would be oppression if the appellant were to be extradited, it is that period of time which must be considered by the court, which is just over eight years.
The case is relatively unusual in that the appellant has already been extradited to Poland once before. There was, in connection with offences of fraud alleged to have been committed in 2006, extradition which took place in 2011. The arrest warrant in that context was issued in 2010. Subsequently the appellant returned to the United Kingdom, as he was entitled to do, in 2012. I will return to the significance of these matters later in this judgment.
The District Judge's judgment
So far as relevant to the section 14 issue, the district judge observed at page 3 of her judgment that these were relatively old offences. The most serious of them, the attempted robbery, was committed 15 years ago. In that context, Miss Herbert submits on behalf of the appellant that even though that was the most serious of the three offences concerned, the court should note the fact that the appellant was at that time aged only 19 and that as such offences go it was not as serious as some may be; it was an attempt rather than the completed offence. The use of force consisted of a push only, rather than for example use of a weapon, and the value of the property concerned, namely a tent, was relatively low, namely around £50.
Returning to the judgment of the district judge, she also noted the relatively unusual circumstances of the appellant's earlier extradition in 2011. Miss Herbert submits that she was mistaken as a matter of fact at page 3 of her judgment when she thought that it was a real possibility that it was the appellant's conviction for the offence in October 2006 following his earlier extradition which resulted in the activation of the suspended sentences. Accordingly, submits Miss Herbert, the district judge was also mistaken later on the same page when she said that:
"If it is the case that it was following the conviction for the October 2006 offence in January 2012, the delay in these proceedings will not be as great as it at first appears when the dates of the offences and original convictions are looked at. If the sentences were activated in 2012, it may go a long way to explain why the EAW was not issued until 2014."
It is common ground, as I have already mentioned, that in fact the relevant period in considering the passage of time is from June 2008.
It was common ground before the district judge that the appellant is not a fugitive. That is also common ground before me, although there has been some issue about it between the parties in the interim period. I need say no...
To continue reading
Request your trial