Warzynski v Regional Court in Gliwice, Poland
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- SIR STEPHEN SILBER
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Jaroslaw Warzynski's appeal against his extradition to Poland to serve a 14-month prison sentence for non-residential burglary was dismissed. The court held that his extradition was proportionate despite his Article 8 rights, as public interest in honoring international treaties and his fugitive status outweighed his rehabilitation and integration into UK society. Legal principles from cases such as Norris v Government of the United States and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic were considered.
J U D G M E N T
SIR STEPHEN SILBER: Jaroslaw Warzynski appeals against a decision of District Judge Coleman made at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 8 October 2014 to order his extradition to Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. The European Arrest Warrant was issued on 14 May 2012 and it was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 12 May 2014.
His extradition is sought to serve a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for an offence of non‑residential burglary, which took place between 9 and 10 November 2013. The sentence was originally suspended for 4 years, but it was activated on 15 July 2009. He was also ordered to pay a fine of approximately £80, which he has subsequently paid.
The appellant was 16 years of age at the time of the offence. He broke into a school gym with others and stole equipment for weight training to the value of about £200. He is now a 28‑year‑old man with a partner and a permanent job in the United Kingdom. The issue raised is whether his extradition is proportionate in the light of the appellant's Article 8 rights.
The district judge, in dealing with this case, heard evidence for the appellant, who was cross‑examined but he was not represented. The district judge noted that the appellant accepted that he was in court when the sentence was passed in Poland. He was 16 when he committed the offence and 19 when he was sentenced. He accepts it was likely that he was told to stay in touch with a probation officer, but the district judge noted that two weeks after being sentenced, he left Poland. He had at that stage not seen the probation officer nor paid the fine.
He worked and lived in Wales for about three years and then accepted voluntary redundancy as he had a job offer in London. He has worked in London for three years. He then moved with his employers to Hampshire and he has lived there since that time. The appellant has a partner who does not work, not because she is unable but she has been unable to find work locally. She has some minor health problems but is generally well. The appellant has no children.
The district judge found the appellant to be a sincere young man who had worked in the country and built a life for himself. She noted that there were two character references from a married couple who were friends, and they spoke about the appellant in "extremely flattering terms". He has a caution for assault from 2014, but otherwise he has led a blameless life. The district judge noted that the