[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 >> Abramowicz, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Bialystok, Poland [2010] EWHC 2956 (Admin) (27 October 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2956.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 2956 (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
		27 October 2010

1. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: The appellant Kamil Abramowicz committed offences in Poland, his native country. The first offence took place on 9 May 2001. It was an offence of assault. He was convicted on 17 October 2001 in the Criminal Court in Bialystok. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended originally for a period of three years. On 14 January 2004 the District Court in Bialystok ordered that that sentence should be served.
2. By that time this appellant had been found guilty of another offence. The second offence took place on 18 March 2002. This appellant with others was involved in a robbery on another man. On 4 July 2003 he was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment with credit to be given for the period he had spent in custody on remand in Poland between March and July 2002. It follows therefore that there are two offences and two periods of imprisonment.
3. The European Arrest Warrant in these proceedings was issued on 9 September 2005 and transmitted to the United Kingdom, to the Serious Organised Crime Agency which is the designated authority for the purposes of the legislation. On 10 February 2010 the Serious Organised Crime Agency certified the European arrest warrant in this case as being valid in accordance with Section 2 of the Act. On 24 July 2010 the appellant was arrested under the authority of the warrant and produced before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 26 July. The full extradition hearing proceeded on 30 July when this appellant was represented by counsel and gave evidence before the district judge. He raised then a single issue under Section 21 of the Act, arguing that by reason of threats which he had received whilst a prisoner in Poland in 2003 - I take it to be up to 2003 - and threats from family members of fellow prisoners, he would be at risk of his life, and his safety was at risk, if he were returned to Poland.
4. The District Judge found against the appellant. Short reasons were noted helpfully by those then representing the respondent. The effect of the reasons given I can summarise very shortly, that the District Judge did not consider there was any evidence of a fresh threat or that there was any evidence on which he could find that the Polish authorities exceptionally would be unable to protect Mr Abramowicz from any threat if it did materialise.
5. The law affecting this case is very straightforward. An appeal such as this from a District Judge's decision is not a fresh decision by me or by this court. An appeal can only succeed if there was an error on the part of the District Judge hearing the case at first instance. Nevertheless this court will always be alert to see if any further matter not ventilated before the District Judge should be brought to the attention of this court, particularly when an appellant is not currently represented by lawyers.
6. I am satisfied that Mr Abramowicz has drawn to this court's attention some material which was not available to the District Judge. First, he states that he has been a suicide risk to himself, has contemplated suicide and, by implication, would contemplate suicide if returned. Secondly, he has emphasised to me the fact that he has a developed private life in this country, a son of five and that he wishes to have a future private life with that son.
7. The situation affecting extradition to Poland under an arrest warrant is quite straightforward. Poland is one of those countries under the legislation which is trusted by the English legal system to protect citizens who are in prison and to vindicate any of the rights that arise under the European Convention. That can only be set aside on the basis of very extreme circumstances. It seems to me that this appellant has no evidence of a current real threat to his safety if returned to Poland. Indeed, he has acknowledged in addressing the court today that he cannot show any evidence of a fresh claim. Whilst he may be correct that in general terms conditions in Polish prisons are not as good as they are in English prisons - that may be so - he has not advanced any reason, never mind any very striking or very exceptional reason, why the Polish authorities could not protect him even if such a threat were in fact to materialise.
8. In a recent case - Rot v District Court of Lublin [2010] EWHC 1820 - this court considered the position in respect of those who allege such threat to themselves and who it is proposed to extradite to Poland. The court made it clear that where we are dealing with a country trusted under the legislation by categorisation to look after prisoners, it would only be where the system in such a country has been overthrown and is not operating that the court in this country would be inclined not to operate the warrant. There is not such evidence before me to suggest that that was the case. Indeed it seems clear that that is not the case. So far as the Article 8 rights are concerned, there is absolutely nothing exceptional in this case at all. One has human sympathy with anyone who has made a fresh life but is to be extradited, and even more so with their family. But if that were a reason not to extradite it would apply to the great majority of those being called on to return to their country of origin and face punishment lawfully passed upon them.
9. For all those reasons this application is dismissed.
10. Miss Rafter, before we finish there is one rather unusual matter in this case for which I would ask for help from those who instruct you. The court received from Mr Abramowicz's former solicitors, McLarty & Co, a letter communicating the fact that they were unable to continue acting for the appellant. That is perfectly proper. The court also received, unsolicited, an advice on appeal from counsel which set out the advice given and law on the decision to withdraw on the part of the lawyers. I am absolutely certain that no waiver of privilege arose in this case. I have not read the advice. I can guess what sort of content there might be. There is no one here from McLarty & Co, and you have no one here with you.
11. MISS RAFTER: No, I do not.
12. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: May I ask you to ask those who instruct you to write to McLarty & Co - I will give you the details, the reference is PB (as it might be Peter Brown) IMKT Abramowicz/ABR 004012. There is a partner Paul Benson whose initials would fit with the initials reference. The phone number is 0845 4506375. McLarty & Co should certainly not have sent to the court - and of course not to those who instruct you - an advice where clearly there has been no waiver of privilege. Your instructing solicitors will, as from the court, alert them to the bad practice.
13. MISS RAFTER: Of course that can be done. If I can make it plain I certainly had not seen that advice and I am sure it did not go to those who instruct me.
14. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: I do not think there is any question of that. Application (sic) dismissed.
15. THE INTERPRETER: The appellant wants to ask a question.
16. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: Yes.
17. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) I understand the appeal has been dismissed. How much time do I have to appeal from this decision to Human Rights Tribunal?
18. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: There is no such appeal.
19. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) I cannot do it?
20. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: I cannot give advice to you. The Court of Appeal in this country is the next line from this decision. You must take advice. But, in practice, you will not be able to mount an appeal because unless I make a mistake on the law then no such appeal will run.
21. MISS RAFTER: It is to the Supreme Court, and it is an application to certify a point.
22. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: Yes. I will try and explain that. From this decision, as Miss Rafter said, there is no appeal to the Court of Appeal; it is to the Supreme Court. That would only be on the basis of an error of law which affected many, many people rather than just Mr Abramowicz.
23. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) There were different articles and matters mentioned, I do not know the law. I have the right to be represented. I was not represented. I believe that (Inaudible) European.
24. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: I have said all I can say.
25. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) How much time will I have after this decision?
26. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: You are liable for extradition as from now. (To Miss Rafter) What is the practice, Miss Rafter?
27. MISS RAFTER: It is fourteen days to apply to certify a point and in that time he cannot be removed from the jurisdiction. The time runs from today. It is sometimes best to think of it as 13 full days. Mr Abramowicz must be removed within ten days following that thirteen days unless an application is made to extend time for a removal.
28. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: Consequent upon an application to the Supreme Court.
29. MISS RAFTER: No. If no application is made, removal must be ten days thereafter. If there is an appeal which then goes to the Supreme Court, automatically the removal will not happen. I make the point about the extension simply because Poland removes individuals on military flights. They remove them in numbers every two weeks. Sometimes if people miss a flight or there is bad weather you can fall either side of that ten-day period. It may be that this is information which everyone already knows but that is what happens. There then may be an application for an extension of time by a very short period.
30. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) When would I make such an application?
31. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: You will have to inquire as to legal advice from within the prison.
32. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) I do not speak English so I would not be able to do it. How would I, because the interpreter is here?
33. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: I cannot myself give you advice.
34. THE APPELLANT: (Through interpreter) Can I ask for the address of the Supreme Court?
35. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: The address of the Supreme Court is available in prison.