[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 >> Kalamarz v Regional Court In Opole Poland [2013] EWHC 370 (Admin) (31 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/370.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 370 (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
		31 January 2013

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: A conviction European Arrest Warrant was issued by a judge of the Regional Court of Opole in Poland on 30 September 2010. It was certified by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency on 15 November 2010. The appellant was arrested on 3 November 2012. His extradition was ordered at an uncontested hearing on 10 November 2012. He was represented at that hearing by an experienced extradition solicitor. His extradition was sought to serve the balance of 2 years, 1 month and 5 days' imprisonment of a sentence of 2 years, 8 months' imprisonment imposed for five offences of fraud committed in 2003. The sentence was imposed by the District Court of Opole on 23 April 2008. He appealed in time against the extradition order. Grounds of appeal were settled by a different firm of experienced extradition solicitors, who have now come off record because they have lost communication with him.
2. Before turning to the merits of the appeal, I turn to the fact that the appellant has not appeared in person to advance his appeal. As a result of what I am satisfied is an administrative error in the Administrative Court Office, Deputy Master Knapman made a production order addressed to HMP Wandsworth on 22 January 2013. HMP Wandsworth have confirmed today that he is not in fact in custody. It would be surprising if he were because the extradition order recites that he was on bail and Miss Hinton, who appeared for the judicial authority, has told me in detail the terms of a bail order dated 7 November 2012: that he put up a recognisance of £3,500; that his passport is retained and any identification cards surrendered; that he lives and sleeps at an address in Sleaford, with a curfew; and is subject to a reporting condition to a local police station. There is no suggestion that that order has ever been revoked. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that he is not, as the Deputy Master assumed, detained at HMP Wandsworth.
3. Notice of this hearing was served on the solicitors who represented him, Kaim Todner. They have told Miss Hinton, and I accept from her, that, as one would expect with an efficient and competent firm such as Kaim Todner, they notified him of the date and place of this hearing. The fact that they are not able any longer to be in communication with him suggests that he has not kept in touch with them, and it may be, I do not know, that he has simply buried his head in the sand and acted as if these proceedings have not continued. Be that as it may, I am satisfied it is just that I should hear his appeal in his absence. I turn, therefore, to the merits.
4. In the notice of appeal it is contended that the District Judge should have discharged the appellant under section 25 of the 2003 Act on the grounds that the physical or mental condition of the appellant was such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him, and that the District Judge erred in finding that the appellant's extradition would be compatible with his Convention rights under Article 8. As is self-evident, neither of those grounds were raised before the District Judge who conducted the extradition hearing. Applying Szombathely City Court & Ors v Fenyvesi & Anor [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), there is no reason why I should permit these grounds to be advanced now, unsupported as they are by any evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.