Mariusz Artur Wiejak v Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY,Mr Justice Nelson,MR JUSTICE NELSON |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5777/2007 |
| Date | 27 July 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin)
Lord Justice Sedley
Mr Justice Nelson
CO/5777/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Mr Ben Lloyd (instructed by Messrs Hallinan Blackburn Gittings) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Gareth Patterson (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Mr Justice Nelson will give the first judgment.
This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Tubbs of 5th July 2007 sending the appellant to Poland on two European arrest warrants, one for theft for short-term use of a car in 1998 and one for an offence of burglary of a hotel bar in 1999. That hotel apparently belonged to his aunt.
The appellant came to the United Kingdom in 1999, eight months after the last offence was committed.
The appellant relies in his appeal upon the passage of time. It is 9 years since the car theft and 8 years since the burglary. He contends that after such a lapse of time it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite him now, especially as he has a partner, a daughter of some 6 years and his partner is expecting another child. He also has a job in the United Kingdom as a builder, and has lived in the United Kingdom throughout since 1999. In those circumstances, it would be oppressive to extradite him.
The facts are that the offence of vehicle-taking was allegedly committed on 16th August 1998. It was alleged that the appellant broke into a Lada car, started the vehicle by cutting the wires, drove it, damaged and abandoned it. That offence corresponds with the English offence of aggravated vehicle-taking, and in Poland the maximum sentence for the offence is 8 years' imprisonment.
The appellant says in his proof of evidence, which was before the District Judge, that he was given a lift in the vehicle and only then found out that it was stolen. He got out of the car at once, but the police were immediately behind the vehicle and arrested him. The following day he was interviewed at the police station about the events which transpired. He was also informed of the charges. He denied the allegation. He was presented with further information in November 1998 and again in December 1998. On 6th January 1999 the second offence, namely the burglary alleged, was committed. It was in fact on the same day, namely 6th January 1999, that he was told the indictment would be sent to the District Court in relation to the vehicle offence. It is alleged that he failed to appear when hearings were fixed. The case was adjourned in May 1999, and sometime later in November 2003 an arrest warrant was issued as his whereabouts were unknown. Subsequently on 28th December 2006 the European arrest warrant was issued.
In so far as the burglary was concerned, it was alleged on 5th/6th January 1999 the appellant, jointly with others, broke into a bar of a hotel owned in part by his aunt and stole a cash register, alcohol, cigarettes and money totalling (the appellant says in his witness statement) about £2,000. Part of the money and goods belonged to his aunt and part to a limited company. The offence of burglary is punishable in Poland by a maximum of 10 years' custody. The appellant says in his proof of evidence that his aunt does not want the case to proceed against him. He said in evidence to the District Judge that he was present at the hotel at the time of the offence, that he knew the person involved and had discussed with that person, who was the one who had actually committed the burglary, the question of making restitution to his aunt, to whom he had also apologised.
In so far as the burglary matter is concerned, on 15th February 1999 the police decided to present burglary charges, but at that stage the appellant's whereabouts were unknown. In March 1999 an arrest warrant was issued and in April 1999 a search warrant ordered. On 26th May 1999 there was a hearing which the appellant failed to attend, and then in August 2006 the European arrest warrant was issued.
We now have today before us a note of the findings which the District Judge made when the matter came before her. She found in essence that the appellant had left the jurisdiction knowing of the events which resulted in prosecution. He knew the facts of both of those matters. He was also aware, he said in evidence, that he either had been or might have been charged in relation to the car offence before he left. The District Judge found that in the circumstances, because of the area of dispute as to precisely the extent of his knowledge, she was not going to preclude him from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victor – Marian Banica v Pogoanele District Court, Romania
...an appeal), particularly in the context of her evaluation of the evidence, was set out in Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin), and has been acted upon regularly since then In Wiejak, Sedley LJ said at [23]: “23. The effect of sections 27(2) and (3) of the Extr......
-
Government of Rwanda v Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Others The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party)
...in the context of its evaluation of the evidence before a District Judge, was set out in Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin) at paragraph 23 and has been acted upon regularly since then (see, e.g., AM v Examining Magistrate's Court No. 4 Murcia, Spain [2014] EW......
-
Michael Lynch v Government of the United States of America
...bound to respect: see Government of Rwanda v Nteziryayo [2017] EWHC 1912 (Admin), [21]; Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin), [23]. In the latter case Sedley LJ said: “The effect of sections 27(2) and (3) of the Extradition Act 2003 is that an appeal may be al......
-
Krzysztof Tyrakowski v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland
...differently, particularly in the context of its evaluation of the evidence, was set out in Wiejak v. Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin), and has been acted upon regularly since then (see, eg, Government of Rwanda v. Nteziryayo [2017] EWHC 1912 (Admin), para 21). In Wie......
-
Challenging the European Arrest Warrant
...that the right to an expeditious trial is not as well protected in England as it is in Ireland. at 783. [2009] EWHC 1894 (Admin). [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin). Para. [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin). [2009] EWHC 897 (Admin). [1978] 1 WLR 779. [2007] EWHC 1770 (Admin). [2009] EWHC 1394 (Admin). [2009] EW......