[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Kozikowski v District Court 11 Penal Section Suwalki Poland [2012] EWHC 2808 (Admin) (19 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2808.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2808 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		19 July 2012

1. MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: In this case, the respondents seek the return of the appellant under a European Arrest Warrant which was issued on 22 March 2012. He is sought in order to serve the remaining part of a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed for offences of robbery and attempted theft. At the extradition hearing, the appellant raised no issues. The extradition was agreed.
2. He seeks to raise at this appeal two issues; first of all, that there would be a breach of Article 3 if he were to be returned to Poland because he says he owes a great deal of money which he borrowed to set up a business. The business failed. The lenders demanded money back which he says he would have paid, but they then demanded double the amount by way of interest, which he was in no position to pay. As a result of his inability to pay, he was beaten up twice. He says that he is in fear of his life if he were to be returned to Poland to continue his sentence.
3. Secondly, he says that he is suffering from stress and depression and, therefore, under section 25 it would be oppressive and unjust to extradite him. Therefore, the court should refuse to do so.
4. Three points are raised by the respondent. First of all, they say that these matters, if they were going to be raised, should have been raised at the first hearing. It is settled law that an appeal is not the appropriate place to be raising matters for the first time. They should be raised at the first hearing. They have not been in this case and, therefore, the respondent says that he should not be permitted to pursue the case. His explanation for his failure to do so is that it all happened very quickly when he was before the magistrate. He says he was advised by his probation officer that the whole matter had been decided so it was a waste a time saying anything.
5. I make it clear that I do not accept the explanation he has given. I am quite satisfied that if these matters had really been in his mind at the time he would have put them forward before the court. He failed to do so. I will, however, go on to consider the substantive matters that he does raise to see if they do raise any arguable grounds.
6. First of all, in relation to the money lender; again, it is settled law that where a non-state agent is concerned, it is a very high hurdle to persuade a court that he should not be returned because of a risk of a potential breach of Article 3. I have no reason to suppose that if reported to the authorities that they would not provide him with adequate security and protection against the people who he believes are threatening his life.
7. In relation to section 25, I am not satisfied in any way that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. He says he suffers from stress and paranoia. He has not sought nor been given any medical treatment for those conditions. There is simply no objective evidence before the court that he suffers from those conditions, let alone that it would be unjust and oppressive for him returning.
8. In all those circumstances, the appeal fails. The grounds are simply unarguable.
9. MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: Ms Draycott, are there any other matters I need to deal with?
10. MS DRAYCOTT: No, my Lord. Thank you.
11. MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: Thank you.