Try asking the following...
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE IRWIN: In this appeal, pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 , Mr Tomasz Poliszuk appeals against the decision of a District Judge Zani dated 17 July 2014 to order his extradition to Poland.
The extradition is sought pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued on 29 October 2013 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 19 December of last year. The Appellant is sought in relation to a judgment of the District Court in Lubin dated 29 May 2012 which became final on 6 June. It relates to two offences, one an offence against public order and one offence of involvement in the importation of well over 3 kilograms of cannabis between October 2010 and 9 April 2011. It is said that the Appellant was involved in transporting and then dividing the drugs. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.
The precise terms of the European Arrest Warrant in Box C may, perhaps, be relevant. What they say is this:
"Length of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed: 3 (three) years and 6 (six) months of detention.
Remaining sentence to be served, 2 (two) years and 4 (four) months and 10 (ten) days of detention."
There is no indication on the face of the warrant how it comes about that he was at liberty. He appears to have been released from prison at some stage in mid 2012 and, in mid 2012, arrived in the United Kingdom. He was arrested on the warrant on 7 March of this year and remanded in custody.
He was granted bail by Silber J on 11 July 2014. Following further delays in his release, a fresh grant of bail on somewhat less restrictive conditions was made by District Judge Zani on 17 July. Those terms, following his release, included a 9 hour electronically tagged curfew, that is to say a tagged curfew which in this country would, by operation of statute, give some credit towards the period of imprisonment to be served.
The appeal in this case concentrates on a single point of law. It is that the District Judge appears to have applied an "exceptionality" test to the Article 8 claim, an approach disapproved by the Supreme Court in HH v the Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338 .
The evidence before the District Judge recited the following terms:
"The first thing to be aware of is that the vast majority of people for whom extradition is sought is to return to serve a sentence or to trial. If we asked Poland to return someone, it would