AB v Regional Court In Poznan, Poland
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- THE HON. MR JUSTICE NICOL
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against the extradition order for a woman convicted in Poland for misappropriation of funds. The appeal argued that extradition would violate her and her children's rights under Article 8 ECHR. The Court held that the extradition would indeed violate these rights considering the best interests of the children and the significant harm that would result. The court allowed the appeal, reversing the initial extradition order.
Judgment
This is an appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge John Zani at Westminster Magistrates Court on 15th August 2013. The order was made pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Regional Court in Poznan in connection with the Appellant’s conviction for the misappropriation of PLN 33,837 which were paid by customers to her employer in repayment of loans which had been made to the customers. At today’s exchange rate the total was equivalent to about £6,000.
The offence or offences were committed between October 2005 and November 2006. The Appellant was convicted in June 2007 and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment suspended for 5 years. Execution of the sentence was ordered in February 2011. The EAW was issued by the Polish Court in June 2012. It was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 5th September 2012. The Appellant was arrested on 28th November 2012. The substantive extradition hearing began on 13th June 2013. It was adjourned part heard to 23rd July 2013 by which time further information (dated 21st June 2013) had been received from the Polish authorities.
The sole ground of appeal is that the District Judge ought to have ordered the Appellant’s discharge because her extradition would be contrary to the rights to private and family life of her and her children under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Appellant married PB in 1995. They had three children. They separated and were divorced in 2010. Two of these children live with their father in Poland and have not featured in the present proceedings. The third, a son, was born on 19th October 2007. I will refer to him as AnB. He came with his mother when she moved to the UK in 2011.
The Appellant said in evidence to the District Judge that she had paid back part of the losses caused by her thefts or frauds (as she was required by the terms of her suspended sentence to do). She said that she was waiting for further instructions from her probation officer as to the balance. She said she called her probation officer from London and was told that the case was closed. She said that she was not told the suspended sentence had been activated. The District Judge observed that there was no corroboration for any part of this account.
The Appellant began a relationship with another man, PC, and they lived together in London. PC and the Appellant had a daughter born on 6th January 2012 whom I will to as AlB.
In her evidence to the Distric