R Stopyra v The Polish Judicial Authority and the District Court of Lublin Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | SIR JOHN THOMAS |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 903 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | CO/2966/2012 and CO/8917/2011,CO/2955/2012 and CO/8917/2011 |
[2012] EWHC 903 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir John Thomas
(President of the Queen's Bench Division)
Mr Justice Haddon Cave
CO/2966/2012 and CO/8917/2011
Miss U Bhatt (instructed by ST Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss H Pye (instructed by CPS Extradition) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
RULING
The court has before it an appeal in the extradition of a requested person to Poland. The case is not remarkable in itself. It has been fixed before a Divisional Court because of the judgment of District Judge Nicholas Evans, which sets out very grave problems being experienced by the City of Westminster Magistrates' Courts as exemplified by what might be seen as a relatively routine extradition request from the Republic of Poland.
It is not appropriate at this stage to set out the facts. It is merely necessary to observe that the initial hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates' Courts was on 16 May 2011, nearly 10 months ago. After the initial hearing, obtaining legal aid took until 11 August 2011. Then there arose questions in relation to the transfer of the legal aid certificate. Then there arose questions in relation to the provision of medical evidence in relation to HIV/Aids at the hearing before District Judge Evans and in relation to his psychiatric condition at a hearing before Deputy Senior District Judge Daphne Wickham.
The court is concerned as to the delay that occurred in this kind of case, the issues that arose because legal aid was so slow in being made available and, much more seriously, the issue raised in paragraph 47 of the judgment of the District Judge as to what was generally happening in cases of this kind.
The issues raised are, in the judgment of this court, sufficiently serious that we would invite the Ministry of Justice to assist the court at a resumed hearing, preferably in the first week of April or, if not, immediately after Easter, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krolik and Others v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland
...Official Transcript Sypniewska v Poland [2012] EWHC 899(Admin) Krzyzak v Poland [2012] EWHC 810 (Admin) R(Stopyra) v Poland [2012] EWHC 903 (Admin) Monaterski v Poland [2012] EWHC 1311 (Admin) Holman v Poland [2012] EWHC 1503 (Admin) Lacki v Poland [2012] EWHC 1747 (Admin) Hartung v P......
-
Artur Krolik, Sylwester Kazmierczak, Piotr Zwolinski, Tomasz Lachowski, Tomasz Soltan, Daniel Walachowski v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland
...[2011] EWHC 1862 (Admin) Sypniewska v PolandUNK [2012] EWHC 899 (Admin) Krzyzak v Poland [2012] Extradition LR 146 Stopyra v Poland [2012] Extradition LR 177 Monaterski v PolandUNK [2012] EWHC 1311 (Admin) Holman v Poland [2012] Extradition LR 295 Lacki v PolandUNK [2012] EWHC 1747 (Admin) ......
-
The Russian Federation v Olessia Fotinova
...Thomas, sitting with Haddon-Cave J, in Stopyra v District Court of Lublin, Poland, Debreceni v Hajdu-Bihar County Court, Hungary[2012] Extradition LR 177. The present case is another example of the shortcomings of the system, at least as it then was. The appellant could not afford represent......