[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 >> Plowens v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland [2014] EWHC 4154 (Admin) (10 November 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4154.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4154 (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
		10 November 2014

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Purdy given on 21 August 2014 to order the appellant's extradition to Poland under an extradition warrant relating to two convictions. The first was on 29 September 2005, when for an offence of robbery he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment which was conditionally suspended for a period of 4 years; and secondly, a sentence of 5 months' imprisonment imposed on 21 February 2008 suspended for a period of 3 years, for an offence of damage to a motor car.
2. The robbery was undoubtedly a very serious matter. It involved, with another, breaking into a flat occupied by the victim and using what is described as violent force against her by holding her by her throat and hair, pushing her down and demanding that she hand over money. The flat was then ransacked and a computer was stolen, together with cash from the victim. As I say, it is difficult to see that that would result in other than a substantial prison sentence if committed within this jurisdiction. On one view, the appellant was exceedingly fortunate to receive a suspended sentence. The second offence was, as I have said, causing damage when he and another, he says, when they were drunk broke the side rear view mirrors of a vehicle thus obviously causing damage, apparently to an amount totalling something in the order of over 400 zlotys.
3. The offences are quite old, but what happened was that the decision was made, following the conviction for the second offence, to impose the sentence in relation to the first and indeed the second itself, so that in 2008 it was decided by the Polish court that he should serve the sentences which had been suspended. However, in the knowledge, as he accepts, of that, he decided to leave Poland and come to this country. He indicates that his motive for so doing was not only obviously to avoid the execution of the sentence but because he had family difficulties. As he puts it, the situation at that time was tragic because his mother had cancer, his father was unable to do other than obtain loans to cover her treatment, the situation became worse, they had no money, and so he decided to leave the country to work in order to provide money to manage to have his mother treated. Indeed, it is plain that he has worked since he has been in this country. He has produced material from his employer, which shows that he has been a very good employee. He has also produced statements from two properties at which he was a tenant saying what a good tenant he has been. He has also met a lady in this country, now his fiancée, and obviously there will be hardship to her if he is extradited.
4. The total sentence, as I say, is some 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment. He has, he tells me, made an application through his lawyer in Poland to see whether the sentences could remain suspended, as it were, and the execution withdrawn. There was to be a hearing on 22 October, but that apparently was adjourned, and he tells me that he does not know yet when the subsequent hearing will be. That, I am afraid, in itself is not a reason why extradition should not take place. I know that the Polish system is such that there is always scope for applications to be made, whether to maintain the suspension or to reduce the totality of the sentences that have been imposed, so that he may not have to serve the whole of the 2 years and 4 months if he is returned.
5. It is, I think, right that the Polish court should be apprised of the fact that he has behaved well whilst in this country; he has worked hard and he has had behind him at least in part the motive of the family tragedy and the need to provide to ensure that his mother received treatment that otherwise she would not have been able to receive. All that goes in his favour and should be drawn to the attention of the Polish court when it decides what time should, if any, be served now.
6. However, none of that I am afraid surmounts the hurdle that has to be surmounted in order to show that return would be disproportionate in terms of the interference with his private life. Albeit, as I say, undoubtedly there will be hardship to his fiancée and indeed to him if he is returned, and also his father looks to him for financial assistance, none of that I am afraid is sufficient as the law stands to amount to a reason for saying that extradition would be disproportionate.
7. He has also raised the point about overcrowding of prisons in Poland. However, that is a matter that has been gone into in some detail recently in this court. Suffice it to say that the situation now is, whatever it may have been back in 2008, that it is no longer possible to argue that that creates a reason why there should not be extradition. In the circumstances, I am afraid I have to dismiss this appeal.
8. Mr Plowens, you can obtain a copy of this transcript and pass on my observations, which may assist, to the court in Poland.