Salbut v Circuit Court Gliwice
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was extradited to Poland for crimes involving fraud and forgery after failing to comply with probation terms. The court found him a fugitive in both conviction and accusation offences and ruled extradition proportionate despite delays.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Goldspring at Westminster Magistrates' Court to order the extradition of the appellant to Poland on a mixed conviction and accusation warrant. The conviction component was for an offence committed in July of 2000 involving the acquisition of a mobile phone worth about £200 in today's currency through the use of a forged employment certificate.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence in his presence on an unknown date before 30 July 2007. On 30 July 2007 he was sentenced. He was not present but that was his choice. He was represented for that purpose. He was sentenced to an 18-month sentence which was suspended for 5 years, that is until the 30 July 2012. On 19 September 2011 the suspended sentence was activated because of breaches of the suspension conditions by the appellant through failing to inform the probation officer of his address and to keep in touch.
The EAW was issued on 11 February 2014. The accusation component of the warrant concerns an offence described as forgery, but it is a form of fraud, committed between February and December 2000. It is alleged to have involved a number of occasions on which the appellant with another acted as agent for a company in the collection of debts. They diverted the debts that they received to their own pocket rather than paying them to their employer. The total sum involved in that appears to be of the order of £2,000 to £3,000 at today's exchange rate.
The appellant said that he was imprisoned in 2005 and 2006 and at some point during that period the police questioned him about that offence but took no further steps in relation to it. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) says that the appellant was served with a summons for trial in relation to that matter at the address he had given to them, which was his mother's address, and she collected the summons on 23 October 2008 undertaking to give it to the appellant. The appellant did not attend, and on 17 November 2008 the Polish court made an order for 3 months' preventive detention. What in fact that means is that the Polish court, in the absence of the appellant, issued what is an order comparable to a bench warrant, not backed for bail for a remand in custody, for an absent accused. The EAW in relation to that was issued on 11 February 2014.
The appellant came to the United Kingdom on 14 February 2008. He gave evidence to the effect that when he came he did so w