Subczak v Regional Court In Gliwice Poland

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: A conviction European Arrest Warrant was issued by a judge at the Regional Court in Gliwice in Poland on 2 July 2012. The warrant was certified by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency on 24 August 2012. The appellant was arrested on 28 August 2012 and brought before the Westminster Magistrates' Court. After a contested extradition hearing District Judge Evans ordered his extradition on 4 December 2012. The warrant sought the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment imposed for an offence committed in 2003 of taking or stealing a motor car.

2. Three issues were raised before the District Judge. First, that the warrant did not comply with section 2(6) (e) of the Extradition Act 2003 . Second, that extradition would be incompatible with the appellant's rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Third, that it would be incompatible with his rights under Article 8 of the same Convention. The first ground relied upon the contention that the sentence originally imposed upon the appellant had been suspended but the warrant made no mention of that fact nor of the date upon which it was activated. The District Judge correctly held that section 2 did not require the warrant to specify those details and rejected that submission.

3. As far as Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention go, the appellant's case was a familiar one in Polish cases, namely that prison conditions were poor and that prisoners, including him, were at risk of threats to their life from gang members in prison in the same establishment. The District Judge dealt with that proposition shortly, correctly referring to Krolik v Judicial Authority of Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin) , in which such arguments, it was noted, are routinely deployed, and routinely deployed without success. Nothing was put before the District Judge to disturb the ordinary position.

4. As far as Article 8 goes, the District Judge concluded that he had rarely encountered a more unmeritorious submission. The submission made to him was that the appellant had a girlfriend who might be pregnant, and that his father was an alcoholic, and his mother who lived in London had had a leg and finger partly amputated and was dependent, at least to some extent, on the appellant for her support. The District Judge correctly rejected those contentions. They do not give rise on any view to an effective bar to removal to Poland for the appellant to serve a sentence lawfully imposed on him by a Polish court.

5. The grounds on which he appealed to this court reiterated in substance the same grounds which the District Judge had considered. There is no merit in this appeal. The District Judge's conclusions were right for the reasons which he gave. I therefore dismiss this appeal.