Pawel Gruszecki v Circuit Court in Gliwice Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1920 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4384/2013 |
| Date | 12 June 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1920 (Admin)
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO/4384/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr M Henley (instructed by Gurney, Clark & Ryan Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms S Townshend (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
The extradition of this appellant was ordered by District Judge Grant on 9 April 2013. It was for him to serve the balance of a 1 year and 4 month sentence for offences of fraud. The balance remaining at the time of arrest was 4 months and 26 days. The appellant appears not to have raised any issues before the District Judge and the hearing passed as an uncontested hearing. He made a bail application at which he raised the question of his pregnant new partner. Bail was refused on the basis which included a fear that he would not surrender at the required time.
His grounds of appeal make no mention of his partner or her pregnancy, instead, echoing language in another case, he says that he fears that he would be killed if he were returned to Poland. Thus he is able to get an appeal under way. No part of that ground has been pursued by Mr Henley.
The judge's refusal of bail was understandable because what happened was that the appellant was convicted of 13 offences of fraud committed in 2002, was sentenced to 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment, and having served approximately 1 year he received 5 days leave. He was due to return to prison on 26 March 2008 but he did not do so. He says in evidence produced solely for this court that he was being bullied and intimidated in prison and therefore decided not to return but instead to come to the United Kingdom. The Polish authorities sought him and found him eventually in this country where he was in custody on remand for an offence of battery.
The extradition offences were for 13 offences of fraud in which by posing as a travel agent he appears to have obtained £40 from 13 people over a comparatively short period of time in 2003. The total loss of the victims taken together is therefore in the order of £500. The offences can properly be described as not very serious. It is perhaps curious but a fact that although the appellant left a semi-open prison in breach of the terms of his sentence he is not sought on a warrant for any offence akin to prison breaking. He is merely sought for the service of the balance of the 4 months and 26 days of the fraud sentence. I take it therefore that the judicial authorities are content that that adequately meets the gravity of the circumstances.
Before this court, Mr Henley, on his behalf, raises Article 8 and proportionality issues. But these cannot be raised unless the points arise either solely from the documents before the court or from permission to adduce further evidence. Insofar as the nature of offending and the period to be served are concerned, those issues are clear from the EAW. The position in relation to the private life is a little more complicated. It appears, taking what is inaccurate evidence in a number of respect at face value, that the appellant raised the issues of his current partner and her pregnancy with his solicitor but his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbara Murawska v District Court Koszalin, Poland
...to encourage an approach to extradition proceedings which seeks, as Ousley J put it in Gruszecki v Circuit Court in Gliwice Poland [2013] EWHC 1920 (Admin), albeit referring to abuse of the appeal process, “an opportunity to reduce the time to be spent in a Polish prison and to burnish a p......
-
Damian Dablewski v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland
...time to be spent in a [foreign] prison and to burnish a proportionality argument” ( Gruszecki v Circuit Court in Gliwice, Poland [2013] EWHC 1920 (Admin), para 8; cited in Murawska, para 57). Any indication from this court that time spent in custody could gradually build up an article 8 pr......
-
Lukasz Adrian Dobrowolski v District Court in Bydgoszcz, Poland
...around 4 months left to serve. That is comparable to the 5 months (out of 16 months) which was left to serve in Gruszecki v Poland [2013] EWHC 1920 (Admin) at §§1, 10 (Ouseley J 12.6.13); the 5 months (out of 16 months) which was left to serve in Chmura v Poland [2013] EWHC 3896 (Admin) a......
-
Jesionowski v Regional Court in Gdansk Poland
...order for the formality of release to be carried out in the requesting territory. 12 More relevant to this case are the cases of Pawel Gruszecki v Circuit Court in Gliwice [2013] EWHC 1920 and Damien Chmura v District Court of Lublin [2013] EWHC 3896 (Admin). In the latter of those cases, t......