Michal Cukierski v District Court in Kielce (Poland)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lewis |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 196 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 22 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CO/1239/2019 |
[2020] EWHC 196 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Justice Lewis
No. CO/1239/2019
Mr N. Hearn (instructed by Nicholas) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr B. Joyes (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal against a decision of District Judge Blake in the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 21 March 2019. He ordered the extradition of the applicant to Poland.
The background is that the applicant is a Polish national. He has been convicted and sentenced in respect of five offences and the warrant itself refers to others. The first offence for which he was convicted and sentenced was that, on 16 April 2011 in Kielce, acting jointly and in consultation with Sebastian Cukierski and two unidentified men, he took part in beatings of Sylwestr Bewkhoven by hitting him in the face. The sole offence with which this appeal is concerned is the second one and it is said that the court should discharge him from extradition in relation to that second offence only.
I read out the description in the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) of the second offence which is in these terms:
“2. On 17 April 2011 in Kielce, using words commonly regarded as abusive, he insulted the Police officers Grzegorz Zabojszcz and Konrad Kowalski during the performance of their duties, and he used violence consisting in pulling the above mentioned persons away from Sebastian Cukierski and hitting Konrad Kowalski in the face in order to force the aforementioned to cease the legal duty related to the detention of Sebastian Cukierski and apply the means of direct coercion against him, thereby violating the physical inviolability of the aforementioned Police officers, during the performance of their duties.”
The arrest warrant says later in the document that that offence is an offence under Art.226, para.1 of the Polish Criminal Code. That provides that whoever insults a public official or a person called upon to assist in the course of and in connection with the performance of official duties shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.
Before the District Judge, the appellant argued that insulting a police officer is not an extradition offence and so should not be extradited. The District Judge referred to the requirements of s.10 of the Extradition Act 2003. He referred to the decision of Julian Knowles J in Biri v High Court In Miskolc, Hungary [2018] EWHC 50 (Admin) and the need to consider each separate episode of conduct. He considered that the second offence showed one episode of conduct which in the United Kingdom would be an offence of obstructing a policeman in the exercise of his duty. He therefore concluded that s.10 offered no bar to the extradition of the appellant.
The appellant appeals. Mr Hearn, in very clear and persuasive submissions, contends that the District Judge is wrong. He submits that there is a need, following Biri, to identify the episodes of conduct in the offence. He submits that, in this case, one part of the offence refers to an offence of insulting a policeman and he reinforces that submission by reference to the terms of the Penal Code, which were identified in the warrant, which refers to the offence of insulting a policeman. He submits that that is not an offence in the United Kingdom and relies upon the decision of Mitting J in Ragan v Circuit Court, Lublin, Poland [2011] EWHC 3628 (Admin).
Mr Joyes, for the respondent, accepts that the District Judge was wrong to conclude there was one episode of conduct contained with the s.2 offence. He accepts that there are two separate sets of conduct. I proceed on the basis of the concession. I do not express a view as to whether or not the concession is properly made. It may be that this matter, if it arises in other cases, would have to be looked at again.
But for the purposes of today's appeal, I focus on Mr Joyes's second submission which was that it would not have resulted in any different result because the conduct referred to in the European Extradition Warrant is in fact equivalent to s.5 of the Public Order Act 1986 in this country. That provides that a person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening or abusive words or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He seeks to distinguish the decision in Ragan by reason of the fact that the extradition warrant here expressly refers to abusive behaviour and that the overall pattern of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Wozniak v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz
...that this is just about insults. It cannot assist the appellant here. A more useful case, in his submission, is Cukierski v Poland [2020] EWHC 196 (Admin). Reference is made there to para.10 of the judgment through to 13. “10. I start by looking at the words “the whole”, then focusing in p......