Petr Demeter v The District Court in Ceské
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Wyn Williams |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 88 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2758/2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 January 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 88 (Admin)
Sir Wyn Williams
(Sitting as a judge of the High Court)
Case No: CO/2758/2018
CO/2959/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Hannah Hinton (instructed by McMillan Williams Solicitors Limited) appeared for the Appellant
Richard Evans (instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit) appeared for the Respondent
Hearing date: 11 December 2018
Approved Judgment
Introduction
On 17 January 2017 the Respondent issued a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW1”) specifying that the Appellant's extradition was requested in order that he should serve a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment imposed on 2 April 2016 for offences of dishonesty committed between 6 November 2015 and 29 February 2016. On 19 June 2017, following a contested hearing, Deputy Chief Magistrate Ikram directed that the Appellant should be extradited pursuant to the warrant.
On 9 August 2017 the Respondent issued a second European Arrest Warrant (“EAW2”). This warrant sought the extradition of the Appellant to serve a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment in respect of an offence of dishonesty committed on 9 November 2013. Initially, the sentence had been suspended; it had been imposed by virtue of a Penal Order dated 6 May 2015. However, on 17 August 2016 the sentence was activated. The circumstances in which the Penal Order came to be imposed and the circumstances leading to the activation of the suspended sentence are described more fully below. Following a contested hearing before District Judge Zani, an order directing the Appellant's extradition was made on 10 July 2018.
Permission to appeal in respect of the decision of DCM Ikram was granted by Ouseley J at an oral hearing on 17 January 2018. At that hearing the learned judge was made aware of the extradition proceedings which were, by then, in being relating to EAW2. Accordingly, he directed that in the event that there was an appeal in respect of any order made in those proceedings there should be a “rolled up” hearing in respect of that appeal which was to be listed at the same time as the appeal against the decision of DCM Ikram.
The appeal against the decision of DCM Ikram and the rolled up hearing in respect of the decision of DJ Zani were listed before me on 11 December 2018. At that hearing, I heard full arguments from both Ms Hinton and Mr Evans upon the merits of both appeals.
It is worth noting at this early stage of my judgment that no evidence was adduced before DCM Ikram relating to any of the matters which formed the basis of EAW2. DCM Ikram was unaware of the possibility that a second warrant would be issued at the time he delivered his judgment. However, in the proceedings before DJ Zani, in respect of EAW2, evidence was adduced relating to the earlier warrant. It is clear that the fact that DCM Ikram had directed that the Appellant should be extradited pursuant to EAW1 was taken into account as a material factor when DJ Zani made his decision.
The relevant facts
The Appellant was born on 16 January 1984. He is a citizen of the Czech Republic. He has a partner, Ms Jarolimova, who is also a Czech citizen.
The Appellant and his partner have three children. They are a son, born 23 February 2015 and twin daughters, born 26 October 2017. Evidence adduced before me shows that the Appellant's partner is expecting a fourth child.
The Appellant has a number of convictions in the Czech Republic. On 9 November 2013 the Appellant committed the offence which is the subject of EAW2 and which resulted in the Penal Order to which I referred. On 16 December 2014 the Appellant was convicted of an offence of failing to pay maintenance in respect of a child or children. On the same date he was sentenced to a term of 10 months' imprisonment suspended for a period of two years. Between 6 December 2014 and 5 October 2015 the Appellant again failed to make appropriate maintenance payments. On 3 November 2015 he was convicted of that offence and sentenced to perform 300 hours community service. On 4 April 2016 the Appellant was convicted of the offences which are the subject of EAW1 and sentenced, on that date, to a term of 8 months' imprisonment.
The Appellant and his partner left the Czech Republic for the UK on 17 August 2016. At the time, their young son was recuperating from heart surgery and he was left in the care of his maternal grandmother. In due course, she brought the young child to the UK so that he could resume living with his parents.
Since their arrival in the UK the Appellant and his family have lived in Newcastle. That city is also the place of residence of three brothers of the Appellant's partner. They all have their own families although they have frequent contact with the Appellant and his family.
Ms Jarolimova is significantly younger than the Appellant. She is now 22 years and 10 months old. She suffers from a number of health problems which are set out in some detail in paragraph 33 of Ms Hinton's skeleton argument. It suffices that I say that her condition may be related to the onset of multiple sclerosis and she is at risk of losing her vision. There was no dispute in the hearings before the District Judges about her evidence that her disability was sufficiently serious to prevent her from working.
Throughout his stay in the UK the Appellant has worked regularly. He is the sole means of support for his family. He has committed no criminal offences since his arrival in the UK.
During the course of the appeal process in relation to EAW1, Sir Stephen Silber directed that a report should be obtained from the Social Services Department of Newcastle City Council. That report is dated 5 December 2017 and it was written by a social worker, Ms Rachel Gabel. Ms Gabel interviewed the Appellant and his partner on two occasions. She elicited from them information about their living and working arrangements (as described above). She also sought to establish what assistance might be available to Ms Jarolimova and the children in the event that the Appellant's extradition took place. Essentially, she concluded that it was unlikely that significant assistance would be afforded to Ms Jarolimova and the children by either central or local government in this country. No financial or housing assistance would be made available. She further concluded that such assistance as could be provided by Ms Jarolimova's brothers and their families was limited. Ms Gabel inquired of the Appellant and Ms Jarolimova whether any assistance could be afforded to Ms Jarolimova and the children should they return to the Czech Republic. The response was not conclusive. Although Ms Jarolimova's mother was residing in that country, it was unclear as at December 2017 what assistance, if any, she was in a position to provide. In spite of the lack of detailed information about what might happen if mother and children returned to the Czech Republic if the Appellant was returned to serve his sentences, Ms Gabel expressed the opinion that the best interests of the Appellant's children would be served if they returned as well.
At the hearing before DJ Zani, i.e. some 6 months after the report of Ms Gabel was prepared, the issue of what would happen to Ms Jarolimova and the children in the event of the Appellant's extradition was considered in some detail. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment of the District Judge read as follows:-
“34. Diana Jarolimova produced an uncontroversial signed statement in support of PD's Article 8 challenge. She confirmed the domestic arrangements as provided to this court by PD. She would clearly be in a difficult position were extradition to be ordered as she would appear not to have access to funds to be able to support herself and their three young children if she were to remain in the UK. She says that she has never previously worked and that she relies on PD for financial as well as emotional support.
35. Albeit that Diana's mother resides in the Czech Republic, her accommodation is said to be small and she only receives a modest pension income from the Czech state. It does appear, however, that there is a system in place in the Czech Republic whereby Diana would be eligible for certain Czech state benefits by reason of her acknowledged disabilities. This court has been informed that if PD is to be extradited, Diana and the children will return to the Czech Republic to live initially with her mother while they seek alternative accommodation.”
Before me there was some debate between Ms Hinton and Mr Evans about the source of the information recorded by the District Judge, in particular, at paragraph 35. Ms Hinton submitted that there was no evidence to justify what the District Judge had written. Mr Evans, on the other hand, submitted that the information recorded by the District Judge was elicited during cross-examination.
I have no means of determining what evidence was given before the District Judge so far as it relates to paragraphs 34 and 35 of his judgment. I have not been provided with any notes of evidence. It is, of course, improbable that the District Judge made findings of fact which were unsupported by any evidence provided to him. Ultimately, the onus is upon the Appellant to demonstrate that the facts recorded by the District Judge at paragraph 35 of his judgment were not supported by any evidence adduced before him. That he has failed to do. It seems to me that I must proceed on the basis that the District Judge was told during the course of the Appellant's cross-examination that, in the event of an order for the Appellant's extradition, his partner and children would return to the Czech Republic and avail themselves of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malawski v Circuit Court in Lodz (Poland)
...common to both, I was referred to decision of Sir WynWilliams in Demeter v The District Court in Ceské Budejovice (Czech Republic) [2019] EWHC 88 (Admin). Having referred to paragraphs 14 to 25 of the decision of Irwin J (as he then was) in Zakrzewski v Regional Court In Warsaw, (Poland) ......