Robert Wozniak v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Choudhury |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1820 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | No. CO/1122/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 1820 (Admin)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Choudhury
No. CO/1122/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Ms E. Pottle (instructed by JD Spicer Zeb) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr A. Dos Santos (instructed by CPS Extradition) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Zani ordering the extradition of the appellant to Poland. The appellant was subject to a European arrest warrant in respect of three cases:
a) Case 1 viii K418/13. The requested person was convicted of driving under the influence on 13 July 2013. He was sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment for that;
b) Case 2 vi K682/12. The requested person was convicted of insulting police officers on 11 June 2012. He was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 5 years — 4 months and 10 days remain to be served; and
c) Case 3 545/217. The requested person is accused of VAT offences committed between May 2012 and June 2012. The maximum sentence for the offences is 5 years' imprisonment.
The district judge ordered the appellant's discharge in respect of Case 1 and I am told that the extradition in respect of Case 3 will follow in due course. This appeal concerns the decision only in respect of Case 2.
The conduct underlying the offences under Case 2 is set out in Box E of the arrest warrant as follows:
“Under the judgment of the District Court in Wroclaw of 24 June 2013, file reference 6K682/12, Robert Wozniak was found guilty of the fact that on 11 June 2012 in that location, during and in relation to the fulfilling of official duties by police officers or the District Police Headquarters in Wroclaw, I, Junior Warrant Officer Tomas Sawodski and Sergeant Kanil Cormacki, he insulted the abovementioned officers, using towards them vulgar words commonly recorded as insulting and he made unlawful threats to instigate criminal proceedings again them in order to make them desist from legal official duty relating to the taking of official action against him and he committed the said offence within 5 years after serving 6 months of custody sentence, which is an offence under Article 224 paragraph 2 of the Polish Penal Code and Article 226 paragraph 1 of the Polish Penal Code, in conjunction with Article 11, para.2 of the Polish Penal Code and Article 64 paragraph 1 of the Polish Penal Code.”
The district judge had to consider whether these offences set out in the request are extradition offences within the meaning of s.10 and s.65 of the 2003 Act and that they therefore satisfied the requirement of dual criminality. The district judge was satisfied that they did in that they amounted to the offence of obstructing a police officer contrary to s.89(2) of the Police Act 1996. The district judge in his judgment said as follows:
“59. I have been helpfully referred to the following passage in Archbold para.28.6. Deliberate and intentional action taken with a view to frustrating statutory procedures required of the police and the breath test procedures can amount to the offence Britain 1973 RTR 502CA.
60. Having analysed the submissions made, I am satisfied that the conduct in respect of which RW has been convicted would amount to obstructing a police officer contrary to s.89(2) of the Police Act 1996.
61. I reject the submission that the RJA have fatally failed to set out the official actions of the police officers, thereby enabling RW to be aware that he had an obligation to comply.
62. I am satisfied that the provisions of s.10 and 65 are made out and the challenge in respect thereof must fail.”
The sole ground of appeal is that the district judge erred in reaching that conclusion.
The appellant was represented by Ms Pottle of Counsel. She puts the appeal in two ways. First, it is said that the offence in question cannot be equated to the domestic offence of obstructing a police officer. That is because, in light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414, it was necessary to consider whether there was any legal duty to comply with the police officer's instructions; a moral duty to do so not being enough on its own. In that case, the defendant had refused to answer a police officer's questions after he was seen to be acting suspiciously in an area where there had been some break-ins. Lord Parker LCJ held as follows at p.419 at (a) to (f):
“What the prosecution have to prove is that there was an obstructing of an constable, that the constable was, at the time, acting in the execution of his duty and the person obstructing did so wilfully. To carry the matter a little further, it is, in my view, clear that “obstruct” under s.51(3) is the doing of any act which makes it more difficult for the police to carry out their duty…”
Pausing there, it seems to me quite clear that the defendant in that case was making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties and that the police at the time and throughout were acting in accordance with their duties.
“The only remaining ingredient, and one upon which, in my judgment, this case revolves, is whether the obstructing of which the defendant was guilty was a wilful obstruction. “Wilful”, in this context, not only, in my judgment, means intention, but something which is done without lawful excuse. … accordingly, the sole question here is whether the defendant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment, he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect. Indeed, the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place short, of course, of arrest. Mr Skinner has pointed out that it is undoubtedly an obstruction and it has been so held for a person questioned by the police to tell a cock and bull story to put the police off by giving them false information and I think he would say, “Well, what is the real distinction?” It is a very little way from giving false information to giving no information at all. If that does, in fact, make it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties then there is wilful obstruction.” In my judgment, there is all the difference in the world between deliberately...
To continue reading
Request your trial