[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 >> Smolarz v Regional Court in Szczecin [2014] EWHC 4428 (Admin) (10 December 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4428.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4428 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		10 December 2014

1. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: Daniel Smolarz appeals against an order made by District Judge Devas at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 15 October 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued by the Regional Court in Szczecin, Poland.
2. The warrant was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 10 July 2014.
3. There are three convictions recorded against him which are set out in the European arrest warrant. The first offence is that he participated in a criminal group with others for the purpose of trafficking narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances from mid-May 2003 to 4 June 2004. Second, the appellant, between the periods of February and March 2003 to 4 June 2004, acted for the purpose of gaining a financial profit in drug trafficking, and that he kept a substantial quantity of ecstasy tablets and delivered at least 200 of them as well trafficked substantial amounts of marijuana and ecstasy. Finally, the appellant was convicted of possessing marijuana on 27 June 2005.
4. The appellant received sentences of 10 months' imprisonment on the first count, four years and six months' imprisonment on the second count, and six months' imprisonment on the third count, which was a total of four and a half years. The remaining sentence to be served is two years, five months and 14 days.
5. The appellant has appeared in person because his solicitors came off the record. He has been assisted by an interpreter.
6. At the hearing below, the District Judge ruled that the appellant was a fugitive, that there was no culpability on the part of the Polish authorities regarding delay, and extradition would not be disproportionate to his Article 8 rights.
7. The appellant has explained today that he disagreed with the sentence which was imposed in Poland. He left the country and developed a relationship with a girlfriend who had cervical cancer. His girlfriend then explained to him that she did not want to have children or a relationship and so that relationship is over. In September 2014 he started a new relationship, and that is the basis upon which his claim has been put forward.
8. It is noteworthy that at the hearing in front of the District Judge the appellant attached substantial importance to his relationship with his mother because he wanted his mother to come to the United Kingdom in the light of medical difficulties. His youngest brother also wants to come to England.
9. The District Judge held first that the appellant was a fugitive and, second tha, the inevitable disruption to his life that the extradition that would cause would be no greater than one would expect in the ordinary circumstances. The District Judge concluded that extradition should be ordered because there are no bars to it nor a risk of any breach of his rights.
10. In my view, that decision was right. The appellant has not put forward anything even approachingma vague case under Article 8. The evidence relating to his girlfriend, which was not given below, is too vague to be of any value whatsoever. She did not give evidence below and has not even given a witness statement.
11. In my view, I reject the appellant's submission that the extradition would not be a proportionate interference with his rights to a private and family life. Thus, this appeal must be dismissed.
12. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to all of you for your help and also to the interpreter.