Sirko v Court In Katowice

MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: In this case, the appellant has applied for an adjournment to get legal representation, but I also have had the benefit of considering the merits of the case. It is a principle of extradition hearings that they need to be dealt with expeditiously. I am quite satisfied that nothing would be gained by adjourning the matter to allow for a representation order to be made.

The appeal is against an order for extradition made by Coleman DJ on 28 June. The grounds of the appeal are that the Appellant has a permanent job, a 16 month old child, has never been prosecuted in England before and he pays his tax. The warrant is for the appellant to serve the two years' imprisonment for which he was sentenced for an offence relating to football violence.

There are initial problems with this appeal. Service of the appeal, the respondents say, was not made until the eighth day, one day out of time. It appears that the Appellant's argument is that, in fact, it was in time. He faxed it on the seventh day. To avoid any possible injustice, I should assume that service was made in time. I will not debar the appeal from going forward on that ground.

The second initial problem that he faces is that the matters on which he relies were not raised at the initial hearing. As they relate to his family life as it was then as well as now, there is no good reason for them not to have been raised in the court below. The authorities are perfectly clear that unless there is some good reason or evidence that has only come to light since the initial hearing, any matters need to be put forward at the initial hearing rather than later. On that ground alone, the appeal would fail.

However, in fairness to the appellant, I have gone on to consider the Article 8 grounds. There is no doubt that his Article 8 rights are engaged. He has established a family life in this country. The Article 8 rights of the child aged 16 months are also engaged and must be considered. I have considered the approach the Supreme Court has taken in the two most recent cases. That is Norris and HH.

The issue for me is whether, in the light of the important principle of returning people to complete sentences or to face charges in their own country, it would be disproportionate in the light of the Article 8 matters which have been raised.

In my judgment, it would not be disproportionate. I do that taking into account the Article 8 rights of both the appellant and the child. Those matters do not come within the sort of categories that the Supreme Court were talking about when they decided what is proportionate in these circumstances. Accordingly, for all those reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: Ms Wilkes, is there any other order I need to make?

MS WILKES: No. Thank you, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: Right. Thank you very much.