Jelensky v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 concerning the extradition of an appellant to Poland for charges of fraud. The appellant attempted to argue on the basis of Article 8, claiming his family circumstances and lack of contact with Polish authorities. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the Polish authorities and affirming that the high burden of disproportionality under Article 8 was not met.
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 Ikram given on 18 July 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland on a warrant issued by the Circuit Court of Katowice on 23 September 2013. It is an accusation warrant in relation to an offence of fraud allegedly committed in November 2010.
The appellant put in grounds of appeal, which really told very little save that he wished to rely on Article 8. He has provided with his appeal notice a statement which sets out, so far as one can understand, the basis upon which he seeks or will seek to argue that he should not be returned. Part of the matter or matters that he raised were that the Polish authorities had details of his UK address, his phone number, et cetera, and he had not, as it were, disappeared and was contactable by the Polish authorities. He says that he did try to contact the prosecution and other relevant authorities to find out why he was wanted and why he had been issued with the warrant, but he had received no reply.
His case is that he and his wife have lived in the United Kingdom, himself since 2004 and his wife since 2008. They have no family in Poland. His wife has depression and depends upon him and he has his own health problems.
The matter came before the court on 27 August and was then adjourned with an order being made by Sir Stephen Silber that the appellant should provide written details of his address and other contact details given in Poland and when or where that was. The result of that was that the CPS should receive instructions from the Polish authorities.
It seems that he did not comply directly with the order of Sir Stephen Silber, but he gave sufficient information to be obtained from the Polish authorities and there is now a letter dated 25 September 2014. That does indicate that some addresses were given, in particular an address in Manchester which is not the address at which he appeared to be living, having regard to the Notice of Appeal. The deputy public prosecutor who has given the response indicates that attempts were made to contact him but they all failed, and he gave, apparently, a place where he was supposed to be working but an attempt to contact him there was unsuccessful. Thus it seems to me that it is impossible to say in this case that any blame could be attached to the Polish authorities having regard to any delay that may have occurred in the pursuit of this partic