Irwinski v Regional Court In Bydgoszcz Poland

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: The extradition of the appellant is sought to serve a prison sentence imposed in Poland for a number of commercial burglaries. The appellant has been convicted and his return is sought for the serving of the aggregate sentence of 18 months imposed for the six offences in 2003.

As is permitted under Polish sentencing procedure, the commencement of the sentence was postponed on two occasions. When he was due to commence the sentence in 2006, he came to the United Kingdom. One year, five months and twenty-eight days of the eighteen-month sentence remained to be served. He was arrested in September 2010.

The decision of the Senior District Judge Wickham on 16 March 2011 was arrived at after time had been given for the appellant to pursue an application in Poland for further deferral of a custodial sentence and draw of the EAW. It is plain, as Mr Henley tells me, that those proceedings have now come to a conclusion unfavourable to the appellant.

There is only one point that is pursued and that concerns Article 8. The appellant was born in 1979. Although he had worked as a hotel worker, he lost his job for reasons not connected with these proceedings. His girlfriend lives with him in this country and they have a young son, who is now just over a year old. I am told that now they each work occasionally and each looks after their child when not working.

There is no very obvious source of further support for mother and child in the event of the appellant's extradition. It is said on his behalf that his rights to family life would be breached and the particular problems that extradition give rise to are exemplified, Mr Henley submits, by what happened after the hearing before the Deputy Senior District Judge. The appellant was so stressed about his situation and the extradition proceedings that he took to excessive alcohol drinking and had to spend time in hospital to overcome an alcohol withdrawal seizure for which he was treated with drugs.

The appellant has, as his statement makes clear, come to his senses over alcohol and the problems which that had created for him. If he continued to drink in that way, he realised that he would lose his family, whatever might happen on the extradition.

I do take into account those circumstances which are new and I consider the private and family life he has here with his partner and young child. I recognise that he would feel, naturally, a sense of responsibility for the welfare of both of them. As the District Judge said, this court has sympathy for a defendant in those circumstances and it is inevitable that a family would suffer if someone responsible for their welfare is extradited.

The District Judge considered various possibilities, but whether or not those possibilities -- for the girlfriend to return Poland, for somebody to come to this country, or for use to be made of social services in this country -- is, in one sense, neither here nor there. This is simply not a case which reaches the level of severity of interference such as to make extradition disproportionate.

The problem arises from the fact that the appellant chose not to serve his sentence at the time when he was due to serve it and now has to serve it at a time that is less happy than that one would have been, but it is his responsibility; he made the choices that he did. There is nothing disproportionate in his extradition. This appeal is dismissed.

MR HENLEY: My Lord, I think the only application I have is for a public funding order, I don't know whether it is necessary. I know that sometimes people don't bother asking, for detailed assessment, that is.

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: If it is necessary, you may have a detailed assessment.

MR HENLEY: I am obliged, my Lord.