Rafal Romanski Appellant v District Law Court in Tarnobrzeg, Poland Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MITTING |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 699 (Admin) |
| Date | 08 March 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/10107/2012 |
[2013] EWHC 699 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Mitting
CO/10107/2012
Mr Martin Henley (instructed by Guney Clark and Ryan) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Myles Grandison (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
( )
By a conviction European Arrest Warrant, issued by a judge of the District Court at Tarnobrzeg, on 3 October 2011, the extradition of the appellant was sought to serve sentences for three offences. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 30 July 2011. The appellant was arrested on 14 August 2012 and his extradition ordered in an uncontested hearing by District Judge Purdy on the same day. The District Judge discharged him on three offences of insulting a police officer on the basis that there was no equivalent offence in the law of England and Wales. No issue arises as to that part of his decision.
The extradition of the appellant was sought to serve sentences imposed for six offences. All were imposed at the Regional Court of Tarnobrzeg. First, a sentence of ten months' imprisonment was imposed on 10 June 2010 for an assault committed on 20 October 2004. Secondly, a sentence of one year and eight months' imprisonment was imposed on 17 January 2011 for an assault by beating of police officers on 8 November 2009, and for an assault by threat on a police officer on the same day. No issue arises as to those two convictions or sentences. The third sentence was one year's imprisonment, less two days, for an assault on police officers in execution of their duty committed on 19 May 2010. This appeal concerns that part of the warrant.
Although no issue was taken upon it at the hearing before District Judge Purdy, Mr Grandison for the requesting authority has rightly not objected to the issue being taken on appeal. In turn Mr Henley, for the appellant, has rightly not objected to the admission of further evidence from the requesting judicial authority in the form of a letter of 9 January 2013.
Mr Henley founds himself squarely on the words of the warrant. He submits that they demonstrate that the appellant was convicted in his absence and that he would not be entitled to a retrial, or to a review amounting to a retrial, under section 20(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. Consequently I must order his discharge in respect of that offence.
The requesting authority accepts that the warrant makes it clear that he is not entitled, as of right, to a retrial or to a review amounting to a retrial, but submits that the appellant deliberately absented himself from his trial, so that under subsections (3)and (4) of section 20 his extradition should be ordered.
Box D of the decision headed "Decision rendered in absentia" states the following:
"During the preparatory proceedings in the above-mentioned case Rafal Romañski was directly instructed on his obligation to notify the court on changing his address of residence or stay prior to or during the hearing (a document of 20th May 2010 that was personally signed by Rafal Romañski). Regional Law Court in Tarnobrzeg sent a notification about the date and time of the hearing —14th October 2010 to the address of permanent residence of the accused. The accused did not collect the Court's letter (despite the fact that a letter of notice was left for him twice by the postman) and did not appear at the hearing on the date and time as notified. Therefore, acting on the basis of article 139.1 of the Criminal Proceedings Code, Regional Law Court in Tarnobrzeg came to the conclusion that the accused was properly notified about the date and time of the hearing but did not appear thereat voluntarily; therefore, acting on the basis of article 479.1 of the Criminal Proceedings Code, the Court held the hearing in simplified mode on 14th October 2010 and pronounced a sentence in absentia against Rafal Romanski…"
The warrant went on to explain that the sentence became "illegally valid" on 17 November 2010.
On the basis of that wording Mr Henley submits that the judge, completing the European Arrest Warrant, has clearly accepted that the appellant was convicted in his absence and did not know about the date and time fixed for the final hearing in the case on 14 October 2010, at which sentence was pronounced. That information has been supplemented by a different judge of the court by a letter of 9 January 2013. He says that:
"Rafal Romanski acted as follows: he appeared at the interrogation on 20th May 2010 and testified (the citation was sent to the suspect's address of permanent residence); then, in July 2010, the suspect changed his place of residence (he left for another city and then actually left Poland) and failed to give his new address, thereby he consented to the criminal proceedings and also the litigation being conducted in absentia (without his presence). Rafal Romanski was aware that the Court would administer him a penalty for the offences in case II K 667/10 as he pleaded guilty of the offences while giving evidence on 20th May 2010; he also stated then that he would voluntarily submit to the penalty."
It is on the basis of that letter, taken together with what is said in the warrant itself, that Mr Grandison, for the requesting authority, submits that the appellant deliberately absented himself from the trial.
Polish criminal procedure is based on the civil law system. It is apparent from the letter of 9 January 2013 that the appellant's interrogation on 20 May 2010, at which he testified, must have taken place before an investigating judge. The use of the word "testify" is otherwise incomprehensible, as is the assertion in the letter that he "pleaded guilty of the offences" while giving evidence on that date.
Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial