Robert Lukaszewski v Polish Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stephen Silber |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1615 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/1011/2016 |
| Date | 20 January 2017 |
[2017] EWHC (Admin) 1615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir Stephen Silber
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
CO/1011/2016
Miss Laura Herbert (instructed by Carson Kaye) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Miss Catherine Brown (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Robert Lukaszewski appeals against a decision of District Judge Tempia made at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 19 February 2016 to order his extradition to Poland pursuant to a conviction warrant issued by the Polish Judicial Authority on 25 June 2015 and certified in this country by the National Crime Agency on 31 July 2015.
The appellant was convicted of a total of nine offences in three separate judgments. First, there were four offences of assaulting a police officer and two offences of affronting a police officer with insults, all committed on 3 August 2008. The appellant was convicted on 16 December and sentenced to a year in custody. Second, was also convicted of an offence of threatening to rape a female, committed on 6 October 2006, and the conviction took place on 7 July 2009. He was sentenced to 6 months in custody. Third, he had a further conviction of assaulting a police officer, an offence of threatening to kill several police officers, on 29 March 2010. He was convicted on 19 December 2010 and sentenced to 10 months in custody. He is at present in custody and there is approximately 7 months still outstanding for him to serve.
The matter was listed for a full extradition hearing in front of the District Judge on 16 February when the appellant advanced a number of arguments in opposition. He appealed but he has only obtained leave to appeal in respect of one ground, which was that offences 5 and 6 which are within proceedings VIII K 749/08 did not satisfy the requirements of sections 10 and 65 of the Extradition Act 2003.
He failed to get permission to appeal any of the other matters, but he has sought today to renew the application that the appeal should be allowed because his surrender would constitute a disproportionate interference with his rights and those of his partner pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Miss Catherine Brown, for the respondent, does not object to me considering that particular point as well, and I will deal with that separately having first dealt with offences 5 and 6.
Offences 5 and 6
The particulars of those offences are that on 3 August 2008 he is said to have affronted a police officer with words commonly considered to be insulting. That was in respect of offence 5, and offence 6 was in the same form. Further information has been provided which states that, as concerned those two offences, the appellant:
"[…] addressed Maciej Sposak and Rafal Przybysz, police officers, using the following words: 'you sluts', 'you cocksuckers'; that took place at about 20:00 hours in Gdansk, in Zaroslak Street near the 'Zakota' shop, i.e. in a public place with other persons witnessing."
So far as the dual criminality point is concerned, Miss Laura Herbert, who appears on behalf of the appellant, draws my attention to section 10 of the Extradition Act which provides that:
"(1) This section applies if a person in respect of whom a Part 1 warrant is issued appears or is brought before the appropriate judge for the extradition hearing.
(2) The judge must decide whether the offence specified in the Part 1 warrant is an extradition offence.
(3) If the judge decides the question in subsection (2) in the negative he must order the person's discharge.
(4) If the judge decides that question in the affirmative he must proceed under section 11."
Section 65 deals with the issue of whether a person's conduct constitutes "an extradition offence". Section 65 (in so far as is relevant) provides that:
"(1) This section sets out whether a person's conduct constitutes an 'extradition offence' for the purposes of this Part in a case where the person—
(a) has been convicted in a category 1 territory of an offence constituted by the conduct, and
(b) has been sentenced for the offence.
(2) The conduct constitutes an extradition offence in relation to the category 1 territory if the conditions in subsection (3), ( 4) or (5) are satisfied.
(3) The conditions in this subsection are that—
(a) the conduct occurs in the category 1 territory;
(b) the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom if it occurred in that part of the United Kingdom;
(c) a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 4 months or a greater punishment has been imposed in the category 1 territory in respect of the conduct.
The issue is whether the conduct in the EAW would have constituted extradition offences in this country and Ms Brown says that it would have amounted to an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provided at the time of the commission of the offence of the European Arrest Warrant as far as is relevant that:
"1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
The approach of the district judge when judgment was given in the Magistrates' Court was that she referred to Miss Herbert's submissions which were that the further information recited used rude words but it has to be read in conjunction with the warrant which says that the police officers were affronted. The district judge continued by saying that she had to take what she described as a "cosmopolitan approach" when reading the warrant and the words used in it; in this case was the word...
To continue reading
Request your trial