Golab v Regional Court in Rzeszow (Poland)

MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: 1 On three dates between 2010 and 2015, the requesting judicial authority issued three conviction European Arrest Warrants in respect of Mr Golab. They concerned offences committed some considerable time ago. On the face of the arrest warrants, the sentences were initially suspended but then activated. In any event, Mr Golab was arrested in this country in June 2017. 2 He appeared before the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14th July. He was not, in fact, present at the hearing but he was represented. At the Magistrates' Court, the only issue raised was whether extradition would be compatible with Mr Golab's Human Rights. 3 The District Judge set out the competing considerations. In favour of Mr Golab, she noted his relationship with a lady called Zatowoska, she also took into account Mr Golab's then physical illness. 4 The District Judge heard evidence from Ms Zatowoska. On the other side, the District Judge was concerned with the public interest in maintaining extradition arrangements. She noted that Mr Golab was a fugitive from justice and the fact that he led a law abiding life in the United Kingdom. She concluded that on balance extradition was proportionate. 5 The provisional grounds of appeal challenged that conclusion. No reasons were given to support the challenge. When the perfected grounds were lodged there was no reference to the Art.8 issue. Instead, it was said that one of the warrants did not comply with s.2 of the Extradition Act. No explanation at all was given as to why this point was not taken in front of District Judge. However, Mr Justice Julian Knowles considered the application on its merits. 6 He noted that three defects in the one arrest warrant were suggested. The defects related to the time of the offence, the location of the offence and the number of items stolen. Mr Justice Julian Knowles identified that the offending was specified as taking place in a particular period of time and that was sufficient. He noted that the location of the offence was in fact set out in the warrant. He accepted that no specific number of items were stated in terms of the property stolen, that was not required. The fact that the stolen items were bicycles was set out and that was plainly an extradition offence. 7 Mr Golab, not represented today, for reasons I have already given is not able to set out any further argument on this point that is hardly surprising. However, I am quite satisfied that the single judge was entirely right. There was no breach of the particularity required by s.2 of the Extradition Act. 8 Today, Mr Golab mentioned two other points. The first was that he had already served one of the sentences, a sentence of just under 4 months. By that he means that he had served that sentence already in this country. The answer to that is that he will have that time credited to him in the requesting judicial authority’s jurisdiction, that is Poland. 9 If that were the only sentence to which he was subject, that would be a good reason not to extradite. This court does not order the extradition of people who have already served the relevant sentence whilst on remand in this country. But that is not the position here. There are other longer sentences outstanding. That was the other point raised by Mr Golab, namely that the other sentences in fact were unlawful. 10 He asserts that the sentences originally were suspended and were activated outside and after the relevant suspension period. That is not something that has ever been mentioned before, whether at the Westminster Magistrates' Court, or by counsel who drafted the perfected grounds of appeal. 11 Mr Golab says he mentioned it at some point to his legal representatives. Either those legal representatives satisfied themselves that the sentences were lawful, or they looked at the arrest warrants and accepted that on the face of the warrants the sentences were legitimate. In either event, there is no basis to avoid extradition in relation to those matters. It follows that there is no bar to this man's extradition. 12 I take into account Mr Golab is not represented today. If there were some apparent defect in the warrant or if there were some obvious mistake made by the District Judge I would have adjourned the case to allow him to have the point argued. But the point that is argued in the perfected grounds of appeal reflects only one warrant relating to the shorter sentence. Therefore, even if it were successful it would not affect extradition. 13 Further, there is no apparent basis for challenge anywhere on the papers as looked at carefully by counsel who appears for the judicial authority and by me. I am satisfied that Mr Golab's lack of representation has not in any way prejudiced him. 14 This renewed application for permission to appeal fails and the order of the District Judge remains and extradition will follow. Thank you very much, that is all.