Durakiewicz v Regional Court Poznan Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal concerning the appellant's extradition to Poland to serve a 1-year sentence for a driving offence was allowed. The court found it disproportionate to extradite the appellant due to the passage of time, the establishment of his life in the UK, and new evidence regarding the sentence. Accordingly, the appellant was discharged.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is the third occasion upon which this appeal has come before the court. It is something of an unusual set of circumstances. District Judge Zani on 7 May 2014 ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 1 year's imprisonment in respect of an offence of driving with excess alcohol in his blood. The offence was committed in May 2005. Seemingly in his absence, he pleaded guilty as Polish procedure permits, in August 2005. The sentence of 1 year's imprisonment was imposed but suspended for 4 years. It was activated on 17 December 2009, becoming final on 30 January 2010.
Between times the appellant came to the United Kingdom. It appears that he came by the end of 2005 or early 2006. In May 2008, he was arrested pursuant to two other extradition warrants, and a month later was returned to Poland where he served the balance of 9 months' imprisonment for those other offences. He was then released from custody. There may be an issue about whether what his lawyer told him was accurate, but he says that he was told that he need worry no more about the requirements attached to the suspension of the drink drive sentence. He returned to the United Kingdom in 2009 after his March 2009 release.
The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued on 12 July 2013. Before the district judge the appellant contended that there had been a Polish court judgment which had considered and dealt with the 1 year sentence. He had no documentation to support it. The appellant, however, obtained such documentation for the purposes of this appeal. On 24 September 2014, Bean J allowed the further document to be admitted in evidence and granted the requesting authority time in which to make enquiries and provide an answer. The material had to be provided by 7 November. For reasons it is not necessary to go into, it was not provided by that date, nor has it yet emerged. It has not emerged essentially because it no answer has really been provided by the Polish authorities, notwithstanding a hiccup internally within the CPS. Mr Sternberg, appearing for the CPS, does not contend that the appeal should not proceed today, a responsible attitude.
Bean J considered the significance of the document in his short judgment of 24 September. Having set out the history, as I have done, he turned to the new document which had just before been served on the requesting state. This is the crucial document. It is dated 5 November 2008. It was produ