[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 >> Kaliszewicz v Regional Court of Bialystok [2012] EWHC 160 (Admin) (31 January 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/160.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 160 (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
		31 January 2012

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: On 24 March 2011 a judge of the regional court of Bialystok in Poland issued a conviction European arrest warrant seeking the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment imposed for robberies committed in 2005.
2. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 9 May 2011. The appellant was arrested on 15 June and appeared before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on the same day.
3. After a delay of a few months pending completion of domestic criminal proceedings for an offence of which he was acquitted, on 29 November 2011 in a hearing before District Judge Evans at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, at which the appellant was represented by solicitors and counsel, no bars to extradition were raised. The District Judge ordered the appellant's extradition.
4. By a notice of appeal issued in time on 5 December 2011 the appellant appealed on the following grounds:

"My first problem is that I am in serious debt in Poland. My life and that of my immediate family has been threatened because of this debt. If I return to a Polish prison, my life will be in danger. This is why I left Poland in 2008."

5. Accordingly, he contends on appeal that it would infringe his rights under Article 3 (and perhaps 2) of the European Convention on Human Rights if he were to be extradited to Poland on this warrant.
6. There is no mention of any of this in the proof of evidence which the appellant provided for the purpose of the extradition hearing. He simply said:

"However, in 2007 I felt that I could no longer stay in Poland and decided to leave Poland and come to England to find work. I had no community or family ties in Poland and thought I could obtain work in the [United Kingdom]. I was aware that by leaving Poland I was in breach of my Suspended Sentence Order because I did not notify Probation of my intention to leave."

7. He explained that:

"The main reason why I failed to notify Probation is that I wanted a clean start and wanted to start a new life in the UK and obtain work."

8. To raise this new ground on appeal the appellant must satisfy me that it was not available to him, in the sense explained in paragraph 32 of the decision of this court in Fenyvesi. Plainly it was. He knew the facts, if they are true. He knew at the extradition hearing that his life would be in danger if extradited to Poland, as he now claims.
9. The appellant does not, as I understand it, claim that his life is in danger from the Polish state, merely from non-state actors. He has adduced no evidence, indeed made no assertion, that the Polish state could not in prison or out of prison provide sufficient protection against the unlawful acts of others.
10. The appellant's appeal is hopeless for two reasons. First of all, he could and should have raised this argument and adduced evidence about it before the District Judge. It is too late to do so now. Secondly, it could not in any event have amounted to an effective bar to his extradition.
11. The European arrest warrant scheme in respect of category 1 states operates on the basis of mutual confidence in the legal systems and prison facilities of the requesting state. Only in cases such as that in a different context in Greece might it be contended that, pursuant to an international consensus, the state of affairs is so bad that it would be unsafe to remove or extradite an individual to that state.
12. That state of affairs has not been reached in respect of Poland or even approached. Allegations of the kind made by this appellant are commonplace. They have not, as far as I am aware, ever succeeded. They do not do so in this case.
13. This appeal is dismissed.
14. MR STANSFIELD: My Lord, may I be permitted to make two very brief observations. My Lord made reference to the offences for which extradition is sought as being a series of robberies. There is also an offence of an ABH or a GBH as well.
15. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes.
16. MR STANSFIELD: My Lord, forgive me if (inaudible) in relation to the mention of the situation in Greece. Does my Lord make reference to the European Court decision of MMS v Belgium and Greece, which was raised to asylum seekers --
17. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes. I am well aware of that.
18. MR STANSFIELD: It (inaudible). I am grateful.
19. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Not every extradition appeal justifies extensive citation of authority. We are operating in a field in which those who practise in it and those who sit and hear these appeals are familiar with the principles and the situations which are claimed to apply in a number of requesting states.