Dmochowski v District Court of Zamosc Second Penal Dision Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE MITTING
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns an appeal against a European Arrest Warrant for offences of bodily harm. The appellant's extradition was challenged on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming a right to family and private life. The court, however, found that his rights were outweighed by the UK's Treaty obligations, particularly as he did not comply with Polish probation requirements.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE MITTING: This is an appeal against an European Arrest Warrant issued by the President of the District Court of Zamosc on 28 March 2014, to serve the balance of sentences of 2 years and 1 years' imprisonment respectively imposed on 31 May 2011 and 22 March 2011 at the Regional Court of Zamosc for two offences which would be categorised in English law as assaults occasioning bodily harm committed on 10 December and 9 October 2010.
The balance to be served is 1 year 11 months and 28 days for the first offence and 10 months 10 days for the second. Both were originally suspended but were activated in January and February 2013 when the appellant failed to comply with conditions of the suspension.
The warrant was certified by the National Crime Agency on 30 April 2014. The appellant was arrested on 12 June 2014, it is said by Mr Atlee on his behalf, pursuant to his voluntary surrender when he realised that a warrant was out for his arrest. After a contested hearing his extradition was ordered by District Judge Snow on 20 August 2014. The sole challenge was that extradition would infringe the rights of himself and his mother to respect to their family and private life under Article 8. The District Judge was satisfied that the appellant had come to the United Kingdom in or before 2009, because he was sentenced by an English court on 15 September 2009 for an offence of battery committed on 26 August 2009 and he was sentenced on 13 June 2010 for offences of theft committed on 18 May 2010. He was again sentenced on 15 June 2010 for an offence committed on 17 April 2010. He then left for Poland, where he committed the two offences the subject of the European Arrest Warrant. He then returned to England. The District Judge did not accept the appellant's account that he had the permission of his Polish probation officer to leave Poland. In any event, it seems that he failed to comply with a requirement of Polish law that as a person as subject to a suspended sentence, he notify the Polish authorities of his whereabouts.
The appellant's case, supported by a witness statement from his mother, who lives in Huntingdon, is that she has problems with the joints of her fingers and toes which require some domestic help from him. However, she works at a meat factory. He says that he is in regular employment even if it is intermittent.
On those stark facts the District Judge concluded that his right to respect for his family and private life under Ar