Grzegorz Budzik v Regional Court of Tarnow, Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Supperstone |
| Judgment Date | 12 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2856 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2406/2015 |
| Date | 12 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2856 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In the matter of an appeal under s.26 of the Extradition Act 2003
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Supperstone
Case No: CO/2406/2015
Malcolm Hawkes (instructed by Imran Khan Solicitors) for the Appellant
Julia Farrant (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 5 October 2015
This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Grant ("the DJ") at the Westminster Magistrates' Court made on 22 May 2015 ordering the Appellant's extradition to Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued by the Respondent on 13 November 2014 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 26 November 2014. Poland is a designated Category 1 territory and therefore Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") applies to this case.
The EAW is based on the Appellant's conviction by the District Court in Tarnow ("the District Court") on 28 December 2010 for offences of fraud. Between 24 April and 13 May 2010 on seven occasions he obtained fuel by presenting counterfeit bank transfer receipts and by misleading the vendor as to his intention to pay. The total loss caused was 59,986 Zlotys (equivalent at today's rates to £10,285.20). A sentence of 1 year and 2 months' imprisonment imposed was conditionally suspended. On 10 June 2013 it was activated by a decision of the District Court because the Appellant had failed to pay compensation to the victim.
Before the DJ the sole question in dispute was whether the extradition of the Appellant would infringe the Article 8 rights of the Appellant and his wife and his 5-year-old daughter. Anna, his wife, has multiple sclerosis. She is being treated by Dr Omar Malik, a Consultant Neurologist at Charing Cross Hospital. She is receiving a drug called Gilenya which Dr Malik considers should arrest the disease but will not have any impact on improvement.
At the start of the hearing of the appeal before Nicol J on 16 July 2015 the judge raised with Mr Hawkes, who appears for the Appellant, whether the assumption which appears to have been made before the DJ that if Mrs Budzik chose, she would be able to remain in the UK if her husband was extradited was correct. It seemed to Nicol J to be at least open to question as to whether, if the Appellant was extradited, she would be entitled to remain in the UK when she herself was not a worker and the person on whom she was a dependant was no longer present in the UK.
The judge observed (see [2015] EWHC 2453 (Admin) at para 6):
"A subsidiary issue, but related, is what the position would be if Anna was not entitled to live in the United Kingdom but required to return to Poland. Would she then be able to receive Gilenya? This is not a matter on which there was evidence before the District Judge. It may be that Gilenya is available but only on a private basis in Poland. It may be that there would then be an issue as to whether she would be able to afford it or whether, in practical terms, it would not be available then to her."
The judge noted that these are matters that were not the subject of evidence or submissions before the DJ. He considered that if the Appellant wished, he ought at least to have the opportunity to amend the grounds of appeal to seek to raise these points on the appeal (para 7), and/or to adduce further evidence (para 8).
Mr Hawkes now seeks to amend the grounds of appeal to reflect the additional factor of the effect the Appellant's extradition would have on his wife's right of residence and access to essential medical treatment. The Appellant also applies to adduce fresh evidence, in the form of a further witness statement from Mrs Budzik. Before me Ms Farrant, for the Respondent, did not oppose these applications, nor the application for an extension of time that was necessitated for the reasons set out in the application to amend grounds of appeal and adduce fresh evidence. Accordingly I grant permission to extend time and to amend the grounds of appeal and to adduce the further evidence that has been filed.
In his further written submissions dated 27 August 2015 Mr Hawkes considers the Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004. He accepts that Mrs Budzik would retain a right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wojciech Wisniewski and Others v Regional Court of Wroclaw, Poland and Others
...Admin., but did not consider this settled law and preferred the approach of Supperstone J. in Budzik v. Regional Court in Tarnow, Poland [2015] EWHC 2856 and that of Ouseley J. in Salbut v. Circuit Court in Gliwice [2014] EWHC 4275 (Admin.). The District Judge therefore found that the appel......
-
Cirena Makowska v Regional Court, Torun, Poland
... [2014] EWHC 1243 (Admin); Salbut v Circuit Court Gliwice [2014] EWHC 4275 (Admin); Budzik v Regional Court of Tarnow, Poland [2015] EWHC 2856 (Admin); Herman v Polish Judicial Authority [2015] EWHC 2812 (Admin); Jankowski v Regional Court in Bialystok, Poland [2015] EWHC 2522 (Admin); ......
-
Cirena Makowska v Regional Court, Torun, Poland
... [2014] EWHC 1243 (Admin); Salbut v Circuit Court Gliwice [2014] EWHC 4275 (Admin); Budzik v Regional Court of Tarnow, Poland [2015] EWHC 2856 (Admin); Herman v Polish Judicial Authority [2015] EWHC 2812 (Admin); Jankowski v Regional Court in Bialystok, Poland [2015] EWHC 2522 (Admin); ......
-
Cirena Makowska v Regional Court, Torun, Poland
... [2014] EWHC 1243 (Admin); Salbut v Circuit Court Gliwice [2014] EWHC 4275 (Admin); Budzik v Regional Court of Tarnow, Poland [2015] EWHC 2856 (Admin); Herman v Polish Judicial Authority [2015] EWHC 2812 (Admin); Jankowski v Regional Court in Bialystok, Poland [2015] EWHC 2522 (Admin); ......