Dolinski v Circuit Court of Zielona Gora Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- SIR STEPHEN SILBER
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Dariusz Dolinski's appeal against his extradition to Poland on two European Arrest Warrants was dismissed. He contested the extradition based on his Article 8 rights but the court found that the public interest in honoring international treaty obligations and the severity of his offenses outweighed his claims. The decision referenced principles established by the Supreme Court in previous cases.
J U D G M E N T
SIR STEPHEN SILBER: Dariusz Dolinski appeals against a decision made by Senior District Judge Riddle on 9 September 2014 at Westminster Magistrates' Court by which he ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland on two European Arrest Warrants.
The first European Arrest Warrant relates to the fact that on 14 March 2011 it is alleged that the appellant used a falsified employment certificate to obtain a loan of 840 PLN. A warrant of preventative detention for 14 days was issued by the Regional Court of Zary on 31 July 2012 and the European Arrest Warrant was issued on 27 November 2013.
The second European Arrest Warrant, which is a conviction warrant, relates to offences which occurred on 24 and 25 May 2011 when the appellant and others threatened to kill a man and a woman and burn their house. They assaulted the man and they forced the woman to mismanage property to a total value of 4,000 PLN, which is about £882.
On 20 September 2011, the appellant was present at the Divisional Court of Zary when he was convicted and sentenced. On 16 January 2012, the sentence was varied to one of 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment, of which 1 year, 10 months and 2 days remained to the served.
The second European Arrest Warrant was issued on 30 December 2013. Both European Arrest Warrants were certified by the National Crime Agency under section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 on 12 May 2014.
Poland has been designated as a Category 1 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 and the applicable provisions are therefore set out in Part 1 of the Act.
On 27 June 2014, the appellant was arrested pursuant to both certified warrants. He was produced on the same day for an initial hearing. Following completion of the initial formalities the extradition hearing was opened and adjourned for a full hearing on 1 September. It was indicated on the appellant's behalf that he would rely on Article 8. He was directed to serve a proof of evidence and he was remanded in custody but on 4 July 2014 he was admitted to conditional bail.
The extradition hearing was adjourned when it first came up on 1 September and it took place on 4 September 2014 when a contested hearing took place before Senior District Judge Riddle. At the hearing the appellant relied on both section 14 of the Extradition Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The matter was adjourned for judgment and, as I have indicated, on 8 September 2014 Senior District Jud