Wegierek v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3588 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/9856/2013 |
| Date | 25 October 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 3588 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO/9856/2013
Mr A Rozycki (instructed by Imran Khan and Partners) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Miss M Westcott (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge at the City of Westminster Magistrate's Court, whereby on 19 July this year he ordered the extradition of the appellant to Poland on a two conviction European Arrest Warrant. The appellant had been arrested the day before but raised no issues at the extradition hearing to contest the matter.
The underlying offences were committed in 2006. Convictions followed in 2007 and 2008. In each case, a sentence of imprisonment was imposed, suspended, with conditions and probation requirements.
On the EAW 1, the sentence was 1 year 2 months, on the EAW 2, of 1 year 4 months. The sums involved on the EAW 1 are of the order of 6,000 PLN, just over a £1,000, and £300 more on EAW 2.
The appeal, perhaps surprisingly in view of the fact that no issues were raised, seeks to raise issues of injustice and oppression by reason of the passage of time. So far as I can see, the particular grounds relate to the passage of time argument only. It is said that circumstances have changed because during the appellant's time in this country and, in particular, after the order for extradition, she has been in a position to pay off the sums due to repay the victim in EAW 2 and intends to do so in relation to EAW 1. This was not material she could place before the District Judge because that had not happened at that stage, nor had the Polish lawyer been involved, as discussed, in my refusal of an adjournment.
Those points, whilst it is true they were not available to be taken, do not of themselves go anywhere in terms of an argument as to why extradition should not take place. They cannot ground a point of appeal themselves. The argument has therefore been that the appellant is entitled to rely on the passage of time bar on the grounds that it would be unjust or oppressive to return her in these circumstances and to serve her sentence.
It would be for the Polish courts to decide, as they are entitled to, whether such...
To continue reading
Request your trial