Kondrak v District Court In Kielce Poland

J U D G M E N T

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Coleman, whereby she ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling 4 years and 5 months for a considerable number of offences, some serious, some perhaps less serious.

2. As is always the case in these Polish EAWs, the assumption is made that the sentences are due to be served consecutively. However, there is a power in the Polish courts on application to what is called 'consolidate sentences'.

3. An application can, I know, be made and I have no doubt would be made on this appellant's behalf were he to be extradited, which could result in the totality of the sentences being reduced; and again, knowledge of the system in Poland, and particularly that the prisons are still under pressure and tend to be somewhat overcrowded, there is a real prospect that the 4 years and 5 months is likely to be reduced. However, I recognise one cannot make that assumption.

4. The basis upon which the appeal is brought is because it is the case that he has a concurrent judicial review claim running in relation to what he asserts to have been unlawful detention at the instance of the Home Office. He was, it is said, unlawfully detained because no steps were taken to investigate his claim that he was an EU citizen who was seeking work in this country at the relevant time. In fact, he was picked up because he was sleeping on a park bench and at that stage had nowhere to go.

5. He was, he says, detained without access to any legal advice, or ability to contact the Polish consulate, or being given any necessary information. He has leave to move for judicial review. The grant of leave was coupled with some strong observations by Helen Mountfield QC, who granted leave, as to the apparent unlawfulness of the actions of the Home Office.

6. Of course, it is not for me in any way to indicate any views on whether that will, in the end succeed. Suffice it to say that on the face of it, he appears to have a relatively strongly arguable claim.

7. In addition, understandably, he wishes damages if his detention was unlawful. The appeal before me is based upon a contention that the District Judge ought to have adjourned the matter, or certainly ought not to have ordered his extradition until the claim here had been dealt with, because his presence was needed in order to pursue his claim here and it would be a bre