[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 >> Lejnowski v District Court in Torun (Poland) [2016] EWHC 3809 (Admin) (19 July 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3809.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 3809 (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
		19/07/2016

Mr Justice Cranston:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of District Judge Blake on 5 December 2016 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court ordering the appellant's extradition to Poland in respect of a conviction European Arrest Warrant. That warrant was issued by the District Court in Torun, Poland and certified by the National Crime Agency in September 2016.
2. The appellant's extradition is sought to serve three sentences of imprisonment: firstly, one of two years; secondly, one of 149 days; and, thirdly, a sentence of 10 months. On the papers there also seems to be an additional period of 40 days as a substitute penalty.
3. The appellant's extradition is sought in relation to offences of burglary, theft, possession of drugs, assault, driving with excess alcohol, driving whilst disqualified and other offences which are described as "illegal treatment of ethyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol disinfection of considerable value, which becomes his permanent source of income." The offending occurred in 2005 and 2006.
4. There was an earlier order for the extradition of the appellant dated 2 September 2016. That was an order of District Judge Crane and an application was made for permission to appeal that order. Permission was refused and an application to renew it was lodged, but, following his arrest in relation to this European Arrest Warrant, the appeal was abandoned and a consent order served on 7 December 2016. That earlier warrant, dealt with by District Judge Crane, was in relation to a single offence in 2008. It was essentially equivalent to the theft or burglary of a gaming machine from a petrol station.
5. There is no judgment of District Judge Blake in the present case. The appellant was represented by counsel, but did not pursue any grounds barring extradition. Following the order of extradition by District Judge Blake, there have been various interlocutory hearings in this court.
6. The appellant's family situation is explained in the earlier judgment and also in statements by the appellant. There are witness statements dated 11 December 2016, and subsequent statements of the appellant in his own handwriting submitted to this court.
7. Essentially the appellant came here in 2008 with his partner and her daughter for a holiday. He then obtained employment through a friend and so the family decided to stay. On his account, he told the probation officer in Poland of his plans and kept in touch with her until 2009. He then had various jobs in this country. There are now four children. There is the child who came with the family in 2008 and three other children have been born in this country.
8. In the documents the appellant explains that his partner has health problems. These were exacerbated by a particular incident where she was assaulted. He explains that he is the main breadwinner although apparently the family receives benefits. He explains in these statements that he has a strong relationship with his family, with his children, that he has lived openly in this country since arrival and that he has turned his life around, albeit that in earlier years he accepts having committed offences. He also explains that he is undertaking courses to improve himself and that he has contributed to the community, for example with regular blood donations. He also explains how his children have good school records and are involved in other activities; for example, his son plays for the Southampton Juniors. All of this would be threatened by his extradition, because he would no longer be able to provide the support that he has been able to provide so far.
9. These are always very sad cases where requested persons have come to this country, have turned their lives around, have made a valuable contribution and have brought up a family which is a credit to them.
10. Considering this case from the legal point of view, there is in my view no bar to extradition, in particular under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was obviously a straightforward one before the District Judge. No matters were raised before him, unsurprisingly in my view. Unfortunately, there is nothing that I can do and I must dismiss the appeal. The appellant must be returned to Poland to serve the sentences which are outstanding.