[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 >> Szymanski v Regional Court in Poznan Poland [2013] EWHC 707 (Admin) (07 March 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/707.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 707 (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
		7 March 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Evans given on 11 January of this year directing that the appellant be removed to Poland in order to face two accusation and five conviction offences. The accusation offences involved obtaining a loan by use of forged documents in 2001 and obtaining some 20,000 Zloty from the victim by deception in June 2005.
2. The conviction offences involved five offences of fraud, all committed in 2000 or 2001. The matters relied on particularly before the District Judge, and relied on again for the purposes of this appeal, involved his mental state. He had been examined by a forensic psychiatrist who had diagnosed him as being borderline mentally handicapped and that he was needed to be under psychiatric observation. That was in Poland, but he left Poland before the necessary steps could be taken in that regard.
3. His evidence before the District Judge was that he had left Poland some 7 or 8 years ago and he had come to this country with his wife and his three children, the youngest of whom is a 16-year old daughter who is at college here. He has not sought any psychiatric treatment, save on one occasion while here. He said that he had suffered from depression. He said that he had been diagnosed as schizophrenic in Poland. He was able in the District Judge's view, which cannot be challenged at this stage, to function well within the community and hold down a job.
4. There is no question that he has mental health problems and as a result permission was sought and obtained to get an up-to-date psychiatric report. I have not seen that but Mr Keith informs me that it was produced a couple of days ago. He has obviously considered it and has given advice based upon it to the appellant. Suffice it to say that Mr Keith recognises that it is insufficient to enable the court to take the view that because of his mental state there would be a bar to extradition. He also raised Article 8 grounds but although there were problems with the family, particularly perhaps with his wife, who is not in any way fluent to say the least in English and who will have difficulties if her husband is not available to assist. The children are able clearly to look after themselves. There is a possible problem with the daughter because she is at college in Kent and I suppose and the District Judge supposed that there might be a problem in her being able to continue although he hoped, and I hope too, that she will. However, none of this is sufficient, clearly, to give rise to an Article 8 claim on the basis that it would be disproportionate for him to be returned. Again, Mr Keith recognises that and has not sought to maintain that ground on appeal.
5. In those circumstances, having regard to what I have been told and looking at the background, it is impossible for me to say that there is any bar to removal. One additional factor was mentioned this morning, namely that the appellant apparently had indicated that he had received information that there was a decided possibility that the warrant might be withdrawn. Mr Keith recognises that, as matters stand, that is far too vague a basis to justify even an adjournment. If, when he returns to Poland, it transpires that he is able to persuade the court that the sentences need not be served or that the offences charged need not be pursued then, no doubt, he will be in a position perhaps to return to this country if he is able to seek work or obtain work here. I am not prepared in the light of the very vague indications given to adjourn the matter further. This appeal will be dismissed and the usual order will apply.
6. MR KEITH: Thank you.