[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 >> Starzomski v Regional Court, Kielce Poland [2014] EWHC 2673 (Admin) (07 July 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/2673.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 2673 (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
		7 July 2014

1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Coleman on 28 March 2014 ordering the appellant's extradition to Poland on a mixed accusation and conviction warrant.
2. The accusation is that between 9 July 2004 and 1 March 2006, in Poland, he committed what is described as continuous offences relating to one-hundred-and-twenty-two victims. It is alleged that he said he could arrange work in England for them and took a fee in advance for arranging such work when he was unable to or did not produce such work for them. It is also said that he forged someone's signature on a contract for the sale of a car shortly after his release for other offences. It is said that he handled three stolen cars in 1995 and 1996, and also that he stole a car. He says in respect of those offences that the prosecution have manipulated the system. He says that he can prove that from 25 August 2005 he was in the United Kingdom. He says that a very long time has passed since the alleged handling of the stolen cars in 1995 to 1996, and that, in any event, he had permission to run the employment agency with all necessary licences and permits.
3. I refused an adjournment application made by Miss Bhatt but she included in her arguments the contention that there was an arguable invalidity in the warrant because it failed adequately to particularise the dates of those offences involving one-hundred-and-twenty-two victims. I am satisfied that the allegation is adequately particularised. The giving of a window of 9 July 2004 to 1 March 2006, with the office premises specified, within a short interval of time, with the victims identified and the amount they lost identified, in my judgment, adequately meets the requirements of Section 2. It is not necessary for dates to be more specifically particularised, individual victim by individual victim, for the purposes of validity. The same point incidentally applies to a similar allegation but relating to a period of three months in respect of which similar frauds were committed in the conviction warrant.
4. The fundamental error which Mr Starzomski makes is to suppose that it is for this court to resolve whether he is guilty or innocent of the accusation. If he shows that he was in the United Kingdom and could not have committed the offences because he was in the United Kingdom, the Polish court will of course have to consider what impact that has on his innocence or guilt. But it is not for this court to resolve where he was or what significance that has for his ability to commit the offences.
5. I turn to the conviction aspect of the warrant. The conviction offences were obtaining money by deception from twenty named people by deceiving them into believing he could arrange for them to take a pre-paid trip to Spain and take up employment there between November 1999 and 31 January 2000. He was also convicted of obtaining money from an individual in order to secure the return of their stolen car and thereafter threatening to shoot and kill a witness. He was convicted and given a sentence of three years and four months. The European arrest warrant states that ten months and seventeen days remain to be served which will have been reduced to some extent by the period he has spent in custody in the United Kingdom. (The appellant interrupted at this point).
6. Mr Starzomski, I am delivering judgment. If you interrupt, I shall cut off the link.
7. The appellant contends that he has served the entirety of that sentence and has documents to prove it. But those documents were first produced in Polish without translation at a hearing on 27 June. I have had translated to me today the documents upon which the appellant most strongly relies. They do not show, as lawyers letters, any more than that an application has been made for an order that he be deemed to have served his whole sentence. None of the other documents contain any reference to a date which would support the contention that he went to prison on 25 August 2000 and stayed there until 8 October 2003. If he is returned on the single warrant he will be in a position to pursue that contention in Poland, for what it is worth. But there is nothing to show that the content of the European arrest warrant is wrong.
8. The appellant also contends that he did not have proper legal advice and ended up being unrepresented at the final extradition hearing. He has had advice from at least three firms of solicitors, two before the final hearing and Imran Khan after the final hearing. On 27 June, Mr Justice Nicol granted a short adjournment to enable him to obtain representation. It is simply wrong for the appellant to say that he has never had the opportunity to have proper legal representation. Many, many people come before the district judge and before this court - Poles seeking to contest extradition - who have the benefit of legal representation in circumstances no less difficult than his. The appellant has begun to claim that his lawyers were incompetent. The judge gave him an hour-and-a-half to hear his oral evidence. He claims that he was not given the opportunity to provide his evidence in writing. He was required to provide a written proof of evidence by the district judge but failed to do so. There is no breach of any rights he has to a fair hearing of his extradition claim.
9. He also contends that extradition would breach Article 8. The appellant has been in the United Kingdom, on his evidence, for about nine years. He appears to speak and understand English to a good level although he has used an interpreter - which is perfectly fair - here and below. He has been law abiding and hard working. He cares for his partner's stepson, who is 14, as does she. There is no strong evidence of health issues and none that could amount to a possible basis for Article 8 preventing extradition.
10. The district judge regarded him as providing evidence that was unreliable, not least because be claimed to be somebody else - a twin brother - on at least two occasions, that is on arrest and at the first hearing. The district judge found his evidence to be manifestly inconsistent and unreliable in almost every respect. He is a fugitive and solely responsible for any delay. Desperate to avoid extradition, he lied to the district judge. There is, as the district judge found, nothing in his personal circumstances or those of his partner which could make extradition disproportionate.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
12. I am grateful to Wandsworth Prison for enabling the hearing to be concluded.