Grzegorz Kolasinski v Regional Court in Gorzow (Poland)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jeremy Baker |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2921 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 02 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | CO/2360/2016 |
[2016] EWHC 2921 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker
CO/2360/2016
Mr J Atlee (instructed by Atlee Chung & Co) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms E Pottle (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Grzegorz Kolasinski, the appellant, is 45 years of age (DOB 3/5/71). Between 13th November 2002 and 15th September 2003 he stole approximately £14,000 from his then employer in Poland. He was subsequently convicted of this offence, and on 28th July 2004, he appeared at the Regional Court in Gorgow, Poland, where he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment suspended for a period of 3 years, on condition that he paid compensation to the victim in the sum of 66,252 Zlotys.
The Probation Service in Poland was responsible for supervising the appellant whilst he was subject to the suspended sentence, and, it is understood, that in December 2004 and in November 2005 he was spoken to about the non-payment of compensation by him. It is understood that thereafter the appellant left Poland and moved to the United Kingdom. It may well be that before leaving he informed the Probation Service he was going to work abroad to enable him to pay the compensation monies. However, in breach of his obligation under the suspended sentence order, he did not inform the Probation Service as to his whereabouts.
On 23rd July 2007, and as a result of his continued non-payment of compensation, the Polish Court, in his absence, activated the suspended sentence. Thereafter a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") was issued on 28th May 2008 which was certified on 21st January 2010. The police in the United Kingdom made efforts to locate the appellant and it is apparent that at some stage were informed that he had moved from his last known address when he had not done so.
In the event it was on 12th June 2004 that the appellant was arrested. He contested the extradition, and a hearing took place before District Judge Coleman, on 10th October 2014, when she ordered his extradition.
The appellant appealed against the extradition order, and his appeal was heard and dismissed by Sir Stephen Silber, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, on 24th November 2014. Thereafter, because the authorities failed to carry out the appellant's extradition within the requisite period, he was discharged under section 36 of the Extradition Act 2003 on 28th January 2015. However, on 24th July 2015, a second EAW was issued, which was certified on 12th August 2015. The appellant was arrested on 7th December 2015. Once again he contested the extradition and a further hearing took place before District Judge Coleman on 6th May 2016, when she ordered his extradition.
The appellant sought permission to appeal against the extradition order, and permission was refused on paper by the single judge on 12th July 2016, but granted at the renewed oral hearing on 17th August 2016.
Throughout these proceedings the appellant has sought to contest extradition on the basis of his Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life. Therefore the question for determination, under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, is encapsulated within subsection (1) as follows:
"If the judge is required to proceed under this section… he must decide whether the person's extradition would be compatible with
the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998."
There has been a series of authoritative decisions concerning the matters which are required to be considered in this area including Norris v Government of the United States [2010] UKSC 9, HH v Deputy Prosecutor the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 and Poland v Celinski [2015] EWCA 1274 (Admin).
In HH, Lady Hale set out the approach which is required at paragraph 8 of her judgment, stressing that there was no test of exceptionality required before the considerations of the interference with family life may overcome the public interest in upholding extradition requests. The question always being:
"… whether the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and other members of his family is outweighed by the public interest in extradition."
She pointed out that matters of delay will tend to diminish the weight attached to the public interest and that the latter may vary depending on the seriousness of the crime involved.
The personal circumstances of the appellant at the time of the first extradition order in 2004 was that he was in employment, and had a partner and a young son. Moreover, he had no convictions for criminal offences whilst he had been in the United Kingdom, and it was in these circumstances, coupled with the alleged delays that occurred up to that hearing, which were relied upon by the appellant.
The first extradition order was considered by Sir Stephen Silber in his judgment on appeal. He noted that there were three periods of delay: The first between the imposition of a suspended sentence and the activation of it, between 2004 and 2007; the second period between the issuing of the original EAW and its certification, between 2008 and 2010; the third period of delay being between the certification of that EAW and the appellant's arrest in the United Kingdom, between 2010 and 2014.
In relation to the first of these periods, Sir Stephen Silber was satisfied that this was not a period of delay in reality, as it was a period during which the appellant ought to have been repaying the money due under the order. In relation to the second period of delay, he noted that the judicial authority in Poland knew that the appellant was resident in Corby, Nottinghamshire, because on 28th May 2008 payments of child maintenance were collected by the Corby Magistrates' Court on behalf of the respondent's judicial authority. However he concluded that he did not consider this was a seriously culpable period of delay because:
"It is a notorious fact that it is time-consuming and expensive to locate a person who has moved to another country. The mere fact that the Polish Family Courts might have known of the appellant's whereabouts, does not mean that the Polish Criminal Courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial