CO/11702/2011
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE MITTING
ARTHUR MADEJSKI
Appellant
v
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN POLAND
Respondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Appellant did not appear and was not represented
Ms Gemma Lindfield (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE MITTING:
By an accusation European arrest warrant issued on 18 July 2011 the Regional Court in Szeczin in Poland seeks the extradition of the appellant so that he may be prosecuted for one offence of armed robbery, said to have taken place on 8 August 2005.
The warrant was issued on 31 December 2010 and certified by SOCA on 18 July 2011.
The appellant was arrested on 24 November 2011 and produced at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on the following day. The extradition hearing proceeded as an uncontested hearing on that day and District Judge Tubbs ordered his extradition.
By a notice of appeal issued in time the appellant seeks to challenge that decision on the following grounds:
The District Judge has erred in his [sic] assessment whether or not the extradition would be compatible with Article 8.
Another ground relied on is passage of time.
Issue under Article 6.
Issue under Article 3 (prison conditions)."
The appellant retained solicitors, Malcolm McGuinness, whose application to come off record I have just allowed. Marcin Kozik of that firm, who states that he has conduct of Polish extradition cases, says that he has received instructions from the appellant's wife who presented a handwritten letter from the appellant, but that he had thereafter received no further instructions. The appellant's wife, according to Mr Kozik (whose statement I accept), has confirmed to him:
"... that her husband no longer wishes to pursue his appeal."
Even had he done so, there is simply no ground upon which I could allow it. The issues which he seeks to raise could have been raised before District Judge Tubbs and the evidence required to support them deployed. I have no reason to doubt that such evidence was available to the appellant in the sense explained in paragraph 32 of Fenyvesi. In any event, the bare assertions made in the notice of appeal do not begin to establish any of the bars sought to be argued.
For both of those reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
______________________________