Gowin v Circuit Court in Katowice Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns the appellant's appeal against extradition to Poland to serve a 12-month prison sentence for drug offences. The appellant argued that the extradition would be disproportionate due to family ties and delay in enforcement. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no sufficient culpability on the part of Polish authorities regarding the delay and that extradition would not be disproportionate under Article 8 of the ECHR.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 , against the decision of District Judge Coleman given on 3rd September 2014, whereby she directed the extradition of the appellant to Poland in order to serve a sentence of imprisonment imposed for what amounted to a number of offences of supplying small quantities of drugs over a fairly lengthy period between 2003 and 2006.
The sentence that was imposed was one of 12 months' imprisonment but that was suspended on application made by the appellant. These are of course now old offences. But the reason why there was no activation was as a result of a number of applications made by the appellant before he came to this country in June 2011. He himself was born in June 1985. Accordingly, his offending covered a period when he was aged between 18 and 21. He is now 29. In fairness to him, since he has been in this country he has not committed any offences involving drugs or dishonesty. I say that because, as I shall indicate, he unfortunately did assault his wife and as a result he was convicted in October 2014 of an offence of battery for which he received a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment. Since then he has been remanded in custody. He was granted bail originally. One of the conditions was that he should maintain a particular address and unfortunately, as was apparent, when he was arrested for the assault he had breached his bail condition by moving from an address in Bristol to an address in Cornwall. He did that, he says, in order to obtain work. Once it was appreciated that he was the subject of an arrest warrant the employment that he then had came to an end because effectively he was, as he would put it, victimised.
As I have said, the offence which is described as offence offence 1" in the warrant was committed on 15th February 2006. That led to his remand in custody until May 2006. He was dealt with by the court in January 2007 and the judgment became final on 5th February. His daughter was about to be born: in fact she was born on 26th February and he made an application which was heard in July 2007 to postpone the sentence . It is recorded it was because of the wife's pregnancy although of course by then the child had been born. Perhaps it is not entirely material because the court postponed judgment originally until January 2008 and then subsequently until July 2008 because of the need for the appellant to look after his wife and newly born child.