Bajorek-Sawczuk, R (On the Application Of) v The Judicial Authority In Rybnik Court Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a decision to extradite the appellant to Poland for crimes committed between 1999 and 2002. The appellant service the appeal notice on the court within time but failed to serve it on the CPS in time. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because both filing and serving are mandatory requirements that must be complied with within the permitted periods.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a purported appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle whereby on 27 January 2014 he ordered the would be appellant's extradition to Poland to face the penalty of imprisonment that had been imposed in relation to some 11 offences. In fact the warrant contained 12 offences but it has been accepted and was accepted below that one of those convictions was not a matter that could properly be regarded as an extradition offence.
The offences in question were committed a considerable time ago, a succession of obtaining by deception in May 1999. The total value appears to have been something approaching £200, perhaps a little less, and then offences committed between the autumn of 2001 and January 2002 for supplying relatively small quantities of cannabis, but on one occasion to a minor.
The total sentences imposed for the deception matters was 2 years' imprisonment and a further 2 years' imprisonment was imposed in relation to the cannabis offences. What is left to serve as a balance is 2 years 4 months 18 days. In fact, as is the case frequently in Poland, the court aggregated the total sentences and that is what was left, he having served something in the order of 6 months before leaving Poland. That is the background.
The decision was reached on, as I have already indicated, 27 January. The notice of appeal was served within time upon the court but unfortunately a copy was not served on the CPS. Mr Smith has indicated that there has of course been a search by his solicitors of their records and they are unable to show that there is any indication that there was service upon the CPS. It does seem, sadly, that for whatever reason it was overlooked. In those circumstances it is submitted by Ms Brown that the court has no jurisdiction following the decisions of the Supreme Court in the material authorities, which are Mucelli v the Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276 and the subsequent decision of Pomiechowski v the District Court of Legnica Poland [2012] UKSC 20 .
The Supreme Court in Mucelli decided that the requirement under the Act was that service be effected within the period of 7 days, both upon the court and upon the CPS. The reason, essentially, why that was necessary was because of section 26(4) of the 2003 Act which provides:
"Notice of an appeal under this section must be given in accordance with the rules of court before the end of th