Apanowicz v District Court In Zomosc Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against an extradition order to Poland for a man convicted of burglary. Despite showing some compliance with probation terms, he failed to consistently fulfill them, leading to sentence activation. The court found extradition proportionate.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Coleman who ordered the Appellant's extradition to Poland on a conviction European Arrest Warrant (an "EAW") in respect of two offences of commercial burglary committed with some vigour. The offences were committed in 2010, one in December and one in June. In June, goods to the value of about £300 and in December, watches to the value of about £1,300 were stolen.
The sentence of two years, of which 1 year, 11 months and 28 days remain to be served, was suspended on 12 April 2011 and activated on 27 November 2012. The circumstances of its activation are not clear. Indeed, the Appellant contends that on that date, that was the actual sentencing date for one of the burglary offences.
In February 2012, the Appellant came to the United Kingdom where he lived in Reading for about two weeks before moving to an address in Leicester where he stayed for a year, which is the address he was at when the suspended sentence was activated.
The Appellant was faced with an EAW which contained the following. His residence was given as an address in Poland. It was said in box F that the sentence was activated because the Appellant had not fulfilled the duties imposed upon him by the suspended sentence and "since he had evaded the supervision of the probation officer". He was not staying in his place of residence, but he "did not fulfil the duty to inform the authority running the proceedings about his current place of residence". They searched for him unsuccessfully in Poland before it came to their attention that he was in the United Kingdom.
The Appellant contended before the District Judge that he had, in fact, come to the United Kingdom with the permission of his probation officer. The Appellant did not, at that stage, produce any documents to support that contention.
The District Judge concluded, having recited the Appellant's evidence, that the EAW was unequivocal. The requirements of the suspended sentence were not complied with. The need to circulate in Poland a search for the Appellant as a wanted person in 2013 suggested that they did not have an address for him. Subsequently, the police had become aware he was in the United Kingdom. The District Judge then found that he had left Poland whilst subject to his suspended sentence and without complying with the requirements.
Before this court, the Appellant has produced the probation officer's documentation permitting the