Kolasinski v District Court In Gorzow Wielkopolski, 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
Grzegorz Kolasinski's appeal against his extradition to Poland was dismissed by Sir Stephen Silber. He faced extradition following a European Arrest Warrant for appropriating £14,000. Despite arguments related to procedural delays and the impact on family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, the court ruled these were not sufficient to overturn the extradition order. The court observed that such decisions are fact-sensitive and affirmed the principles of international comity regarding extradition and custodial sentences.
J U D G M E N T
Monday 24 th November 2014
SIR STEPHEN SILBER:
1. Grzegorz Kolasinski appeals against the decision of District Judge Coleman made at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 10 th October 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland on a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued out of the District Court in Gorzow Wielkopolski on 28 th May 2008 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 21 st January 2010. The appellant's extradition is sought to serve a sentence of imprisonment of one year five months and 28 days in respect of one offence of appropriation of money from a number of named individuals to a total sum of £14,000. The sentence was originally suspended, but it was activated on 23 rd July 2007. The appellant was present when the suspended sentence was imposed, but the activation took place in his absence.
2. The grounds of appeal are that the District Judge erred in ordering the appellant's extradition on the basis of section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. At the forefront of the appellant's case is the issue of delay, coupled with the issue relating to the appellant's child. The appellant and his partner have a son who was born on 5 th September 2007 and is now 7 years of age. No evidence was adduced to show that the appellant's partner would be unable to care for their son, although she is taking medication for depression.
4. The major factor which is relied on is that of delay. It is said that there were three periods of delay. The first period was between the imposition of the sentence, which was originally suspended on 28 th July 2004, and the issue of the European Arrest Warrant on 28 th May 2008.
5. In answer it is said by Miss Nice, who appears for the Judicial Authority, that this was not a period of delay; it was a period during which the appellant ought to have been repaying money.
6. The second alleged substantial period of delay was between the issue of the European Arrest Warrant and its certification as a Part 1 warrant on 21 st January 2010, particularly in the light of the fact that the respondent Judicial Authority knew that the appellant was resident in Corby, because on 28 th May 2008 payments of child maintenance were collected by the Corby Magistrates' Court on behalf of the respondent Judicial Authority.
7. It is a notorious fact that it is time-consuming and expensive to locate a person who has moved to another country. The mere fa