Kazimierczuk v Regional Court in Elblag, Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE OUSELEY |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3228 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/6388/2011 |
| Date | 16 November 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 3228 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO/6388/2011
Adam Watkins (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
James Stansfeld (instructed by The CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This may be an appeal against the decision of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court at the initial hearing of the extradition warrant on 5 July 2011. This was a conviction warrant in respect of four offences, one of which, the one at issue in this potential appeal, attracted a sentence of 1 year and 8 months. The other three attracted a sentence together of 2 years. Extradition is sought that those sentences, combined to make 3 years and 8 months, be served.
I say "this may be an appeal" because no issues in opposition to extradition were raised by the duty solicitor on behalf of the appellant at the hearing. The appellant lodged an appeal with the assistance of the prison staff, but the grounds of appeal are not grounds of appeal at all, and simply say that full grounds are to follow. Accordingly, applying the decision of the Divisional Court in Pomiechowski v the District Court of Legunica, Poland [2011] EWHC 2060 (Admin), there was no valid notice of appeal. However, because that matter has been appealed to the Supreme Court, I have heard the merits, lest the court decide on the basis of Pomiechowski as it stands, that decision is then overturned in the Supreme Court, with the upshot that someone's appeal, which may or may not have merit, has not been heard.
It is important that during the period while Pomiechowski remains undecided in the Supreme Court, that that is the approach that is adopted. The court hearing the appeal should reach a decision on whether, applying Pomiechowski as it now stands, there is a valid appeal. In this case there is not. Nevertheless, the court must go on to decide whether there is merit in the appeal, notwithstanding Pomiechowski, so that if Pomiechowski is overturned, a decision has been reached already on the facts. That, as I see it, was the approach adopted by Silber J in Prahl v Poland, 14 October 2011. It is certainly the approach which should be adopted.
The appeal grounds were formulated much more recently. The appeal raises a single point in relation to one of the offences covered by the extradition warrant. The contention is that dual criminality is not satisfied and there is insufficient particularity about the conviction or offence to enable the court to be satisfied that the conduct alleged would have constituted an offence in England. It is not a submission that depends upon further evidence, at least in this case.
The relevant offence is described in the warrant as being:
"On 22 June 2006 in Elblag at Grunwaldzka Street [the appellant] misappropriated a moveable item entrusted to him, which comprised a mobile phone, NOKIA 6030 worth 300 PLN to the detriment of [the victim]."
Under the heading "Nature and legal classification of the offence(s)", it was described as an offence of "peculation" under Article 284, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code. By way of note at this stage, there was also an offence of theft in which it was alleged that the appellant had "misappropriated" a television set to the detriment of another person. No appeal is raised in relation to that.
Mr Watkins' submission is that the word "misappropriate", albeit in a statutory provision alleging "peculation", does not necessarily mean that there is an ingredient of dishonesty as opposed to strict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godlewski v Polish Judicial Authority
...Consequently, it has no purchase in this case. 10 The binding authority on me is the decision of Ouseley J in Kazimierczuk v Regional Court in Elbag, Poland, [2011] EWHC 3228 (Admin). That was a case on all fours with the current appeal. The appellant there was convicted under the same sub......
-
Cesar Enasoaie v Court of Bacau, Romania
...At the extradition hearing, the parties referred to Assange v Sweden [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) (“ Assange”), Kazimierczuk v Poland [2011] EWHC 3228 (Admin) (“ Kazimierczuk”) and Godlewski v Poland [2016] EWHC 2404 (Admin) (“ Godlewski”). On Mr Enasoaie's behalf it was submitted in relatio......
-
Laszlo Feledi v Regional Court of Miskolc (Hungary)
...offences are “strict liability” offences. That same logic is recognised into Polish cases cited by the respondent Kazimierczuk [2011] EWHC 3228 (Admin) at paragraph 15 and Goldewski [2016] EWHC 2404 (Admin) at paragraph 6 In my judgment, it is clear based on the further information that t......