Pawal Krzyanowski v Regional Court of Krakow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 3401 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/476/2020 |
| Date | 10 December 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 3401 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/476/2020
The Appellant in person (by video link with an interpreter)
Hannah Burton (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 10.12.20
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: This judgment was produced for the parties, approved by the Judge, after using voice-recognition software during an ex tempore judgment in Court 75 at a hearing.
Introduction
This is a case that came before me in August. I gave a judgment on 20 August 2020 [2020] EWHC 2351 (Admin). I am not going to repeat in this second judgment the background and circumstances of this case. Subsequent to that judgment I ordered an adjournment on 1 October 2020 and there was a hearing in front of May J who ordered a further adjournment on 4 November 2020.
The ‘remand time served’ issue
The central issue before the Court today concerns the remand time which the Appellant has served. It is to the great credit of the Respondent (the Polish authorities), and in particular its Counsel Hannah Burton, that in submissions dated 6 October 2020 – recognising that the Appellant was acting in person in this case – the Court's attention was drawn to the implications of the ongoing ‘qualifying remand’ which he has been serving. Those submissions stated:
“the sentence for which the [Appellant] is wanted will have been served in full by 17 December 2020”.
Ms Burton tells me that that was based on her calculation. The Appellant had been arrested and appeared in the magistrates' court on 3 February 2020, having failed to surrender for his extradition hearing following his release on bail on 18 January 2019. He was sentenced to serve 4 weeks custody for his failure to surrender to his bail. Ms Burton's calculation took account of that sentence calculating him to have served the custodial element of half prior to qualifying remand commencing on 17 February 2020. Again to her great credit, Ms Burton has raised with me today the fact that it is possible that the Appellant had in fact been arrested a day or a few days prior to 3 February 2020. If that is right the date of 17 December 2020, which in the Respondent's written submissions was recognised as the date on which he would have served qualifying remand constituting the 10 months custody in respect of which extradition can be and is still pursued, may in fact be a date needing to be adjusted and brought forward.
The procedural position
The position before me today, formally, is that this is still an extant application for permission to appeal. It was renewed 10 days out of time following refusal on the papers. Entirely understandably, and remembering that the Appellant is acting in person, the qualifying ‘remand time served’ point raised by Ms Burton has never formally been taken by the Appellant in any document before the Court. I am quite satisfied, and Ms Burton fairly and properly does not resist, that I should give permission to appeal on the qualifying ‘remand time served’ point, with an extension of time for the notice of renewal, with permission to amend the grounds and with an extension of time for that; and that I should direct that today's hearing is to be treated as the substantive appeal in relation to that ‘remand time served’ ground of appeal. I will return to say more about that issue and the order that is appropriate in the light of. But first I want to deal with the other matters.
The ‘enforcement expiry’ issue
In my earlier judgment in this case I raised a concern arising out of the fact that the Polish judgment in relation to the 10 months custody had been described as one whose enforceability had expired on 20 March 2019. That expiry date appeared on the face of the EAW and was specifically recorded in the judgment of the District Judge. As I explained, I wanted an enquiry to be undertaken as to whether extradition could properly be maintained, if that Polish judgment and its enforceability had expired. Ms Burton's industry has uncovered the case of Grazulis [2015] EWHC 707 (Admin) at paragraph 3 to 5. Paragraph 3 of that judgment records the need, in a situation where such a concern arises, for the Court to “embark on a procedure for establishing” whether enforcement has expired, since it would be an abuse of process to extradite an individual if it was clear that the requesting state's judgment could and would not be executed. Happily, that enquiry is the one which had struck me as appropriate. However, now that it has been undertaken and completed I am quite satisfied that the Appellant does stand to be extradited in relation to the Polish court judgment giving rise to the 10 months custodial sentence, subject only to the question of ‘remand time served’. The Respondent has placed information before the court which demonstrates that on 16 June 2011 the enforcement in respect of the relevant Polish judgment was suspended, meaning in Polish law that its enforceability was extended to 20. 3.2029. In the light of that information, to the extent that there is any remaining doubt or some question for resolution, those would be matters for the Polish authorities to address: see paragraph 5 of Grazulis. This point has therefore fallen away, albeit that it was right that the appropriate enquiry should have been undertaken and it is regrettable that the mistake about expiry of enforceability stood on the EAW and persisted through to being recorded in the judgment of the District Judge. The position has been clarified now I accept the submission that there has at all times during these proceedings in fact been an enforceable sentence of 10 months custody.
The Wozniak point
I raised in my earlier judgment the point of principle arising in Wozniak [2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin). So far as that point is concerned the Respondent in its submissions properly recognises: that it would not be appropriate to oppose an application to raise that new issue; and that in other cases stays on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marek Pawlak v Regional Court of Szczecin (Poland)
...been provided – with those communications. I reasoned that the point was indeed straightforward, referring to Krzyanowski v Poland [2020] EWHC 3401 (Admin). As regards representation, any competent counsel in the field could readily step in and there were Counsel appearing in other cases t......