Bliskowski v Circuit Court In Opole
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE BLAKE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant appealed the extradition decision made by the Chief Magistrate concerning drug offences committed in Poland between 2002 and 2004. His arguments against extradition included claims of process abuse, violations of Articles 3, 7, and 8 of the ECHR. The court dismissed the appeal, citing the public interest in extradition, the high threshold for Article 3 claims, and the sufficiency of protection presumed in the Polish system.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: This is an appeal from the decision of the Chief Magistrate given on 11 September 2014 ordering the appellant's extradition to Poland on a conviction warrant for drug offences committed between 2002 and 2004 for which he has a two-year sentence effectively to serve. He failed to report to prison to serve his sentence in 2001 and came to the United Kingdom in breach of his obligations in the Polish penal process. He was accordingly found to be a fugitive from justice.
Three points were taken on his behalf below. The first point was that the application was an abuse of process because the Polish authorities had presented an amended warrant and withdrawn an earlier one. The second point was that because in the arrest warrant reference was made to the 2005 statute governing drug offences in Poland that was an application of a retrospective penal provision contrary to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The third submission was that extradition would be a disproportionate and unjust interference with the family life that the appellant had established in the United Kingdom since 2007 when he came here with his partner.
The judge found against all three submissions for reasons that he gave in his judgment, to which I do not need to refer in any detail, but in respect of the retrospective point pointed out that the reference to the sentencing statute was to bring in a more mild sentencing regime rather than a more harsh one, and there was already authority to the point that therefore reference to that subsequent statute after the offence had been committed did not violate the principles of Article 7. He also found that the presentation of a fresh warrant was not an abuse.
All those grounds were renewed on the appellant's behalf by his then legal team but they have applied subsequently to come off the record, and so he is unrepresented today.
The appellant has made brief representations to me in person today in which he has explained that he does not want to go back to Poland, and that he would prefer to serve his sentence here. He indicates that he thinks he would have problems with former criminal associates or other related persons in Poland who might threaten him and injure him in prison. That submission tentatively suggests an Article 3 ECHR claim on the basis that his extradition might lead to him being exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment.
In brief, the fact that he would prefer to serve h