Michalik v Circuit Court In Katowice, Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- SIR STEPHEN SILBER
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Daniel Michalik appealed a decision for his extradition to Poland to serve a remaining sentence. His appeal focused on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, considering his life in the UK, his young age during the offense, and the impact on his family. Despite residing in the UK with a good character and supporting his daughter, his appeal also scrutinized the relevance of his 6-hour UK curfew towards his sentence. SIR STEPHEN SILBER considered the case's unique aspects and deemed extradition as disproportionate, thus allowing the appeal.
J U D G M E N T
SIR STEPHEN SILBER:
Introduction
Daniel Michalik (" the appellant") appeals against the decision of District Judge Snow made on 5 August 2014 to order the his extradition pursuant to a conviction European Arrest Warrant, issued by the Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland, to enforce the 4 month 13 day sentence remaining from a 6‑month sentence. The sentence was imposed following two offences which were committed on 6 June 2009 when the appellant was just 17.
The district judge found that one of the offences was not a criminal offence in this country and the remaining extradition offence could be described as being equivalent of the English offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty.
The European Arrest Warrant was issued five years after the sentence on 30 September 2014 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 27 January 2014, with the appellant being arrested on 1 June 2014
The Hearing before the District Judge
The appellant has lived in the United Kingdom since 2011, and he has a 2‑year‑old daughter who was born on 26 August 2012. He is of good character in the United Kingdom. The mother of his child is his partner, Dominika Jedrzejczyk, but there have been periods since 2011 when the appellant and his partner have not been in a relationship, but at present, since there was a reunion in July 2014, they have indeed been together.
. The district judge did not find the appellant to be a credible witness and he noted the appellant's inability to recall his probation officer's name. The district judge was also concerned that the appellant had not been totally candid about his relationship with his partner, because it was only during the course of the proceedings that it became clear that his partner had obtained a restraining order on 21 January 2014 at the family proceedings court, but the order has been revoked.
The district judge found the relationship between the appellant and his partner to be "extremely unstable", but he did accept that his partner had become reliant upon the appellant for maintenance, which he does pay, although she did manage to earn, at that stage, £252 a fortnight. I should add that there has been further evidence which has been adduced which shows that the appellant's partner has lost her job and been declared redundant at present, so that changes the financial situation.
The Grounds of Appeal
The two grounds of appeal are, first, that the appellant has served his sentence bear