Marek Pawlowski v Regional Court in Tarnow, Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 19 September 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2320 (Admin) |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: AC-2022-LON-003335 |
[2023] EWHC 2320 (Admin)
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: AC-2022-LON-003335
CO/4403/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ania Grudzinska (instructed by Hollingsworth Edwards Solicitors) for the Appellant
Michael McHardy (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 19.9.23
Judgment as delivered in open court at the hearing
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Note: Note: This judgment was produced and approved by the Judge from the ex tempore judgment delivered in open court.
Introduction
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal in an extradition case. The Appellant is aged 35 and is wanted for extradition to Poland. That is in conjunction with a conviction Extradition Arrest Warrant issued on 14 February 2022 and certified on 29 March 2022, on which he was arrested on 10 May 2022. He has been on extradition remand ever since. He is wanted to serve the entirety of a two-year custodial sentence. It was originally imposed on 26 July 2016 – and became final on 3 August 2016 – as a suspended sentence with a three-year suspension period requiring probation and the payment of 8800PLN (approximately £1600) as what the papers describe as ‘punitive damages for a social purpose’. The index offending was two counts of supply of amphetamines between December 2010 and June 2012, together with a count of possession of marijuana. Extradition was ordered by District Judge Tempia (the Judge) on 18 November 2022 after an oral hearing on 20 October 2022. The Judge found that the Appellant had originally come to the United Kingdom back in 2014, after which he had returned to Poland. Then in 2017, a year into the probation and suspension period after being sentenced in 2016 for the 2010–2012 drugs offending, he came back to the United Kingdom. By the end of the 3 years (August 2019), he had paid just over 1000PLN of the required punitive damages. In those circumstances, the Polish probation service had applied for activation of the custodial sentence, which was ordered by the Polish court on 8 October 2019.
The sole substantive issue in the appeal is Article 8 ECHR. Viewed in “private and family life” terms, the Article 8 argument as a bar to extradition is based on “private life” and the periods in which the Appellant has been in the United Kingdom, with employment and with no UK convictions. There is no relevant family life. There are, for example, no dependent partner or children. There are the links and roots which the Appellant has made and put down in the UK. Viewed in terms of the Judge's analysis as at the end of 2022, the conclusion that extradition would be compatible with the Appellant's Article 8 rights was unimpeachably correct, as Julian Knowles J recorded in refusing permission to appeal on the papers on 19 July 2023. The Judge had unassailably found that the Appellant's return to the UK in 2017 was as a fugitive, in circumstances where – on the evidence – the Appellant had been notified on 15 December 2016 of requirements imposed on him in Poland, including the need to obtain the Polish court's permission before any relocation. He did relocate and did not obtain that permission. Moreover, as the Judge found, he then relocated within the UK without notifying anyone. The Appellant has a graduate law degree. He was well aware of the obligations which had been imposed on him. Indeed, he made several applications from the UK to have the obligation to pay the punitive damages cancelled. His description of believing that he had paid off the punitive damages was rejected by the Judge having heard oral evidence with cross-examination. There is no prospect that that adverse finding would be overturned on appeal to this Court. Wisely, no challenge is made in the perfected grounds of appeal to the adverse findings on fugitivity and credibility.
Key Features
The features which Ms Grudzinska emphasises – in writing and orally – include the following in particular. There are points relating to the passage of time. First, between June 2012 when the offending last took place and July 2016 when the Appellant was sentenced. Secondly, between October 2019 when the sentence was activated and February 2022 when the Extradition Arrest Warrant was issued. The Judge said that there was no delay, clearly meaning – as Julian Knowles J pointed out – no culpable delay. Then there are points about the relative gravity of the index offending. The Judge rightly recognised that this was not the most serious of offending. But it was the supply of drugs and the starting point was (and remains) to respect the two-year sentence, and its activation in light of the failure to fulfil the payment obligation regarding the punitive damages. Then there are the points relating to the current circumstances. These have become central to the case, whose essence is that it would now be incompatible with Article 8 for the Appellant to be extradited. There is an application dated 26 July 2023 to rely on putative fresh evidence. This includes documents in Polish with English translations which the application said were “to follow once available”. Regrettably, the translations came only in the days immediately before today's hearing.
In terms of the circumstances as they now are, there are these key interrelated points. First, it is said that the Appellant has paid “almost entirely” the outstanding balance of the punitive damages, by making a payment of 2000PLN (approximately £400) on 14 April 2023. To put “almost entirely” into perspective, the Appellant accepts that there is still a further 2000PLN which is unpaid. Secondly, it is pointed out that what at the time of the Judge's judgment was 5 months qualifying remand is now 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial