Hazi v Circuit Court in Gdansk Poland

MR JUSTICE BLAKE: This is an appeal against a decision of District Judge Bayne given on 16 May 2014 whereby she ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland on a conviction warrant but only in respect of a charge of racketeering alleged to have been committed on 12 January 1998. The European Arrest Warrant originally referred to three offences: racketeering, possession of a small quantity of cannabis and theft of a radio tape recorder at a later date.

The first offences were committed, as indicated, in January 1998. There was a prosecution and he was convicted and a suspended sentence of imprisonment was imposed. Then he committed the later offence of theft of a radio tape recorder in June 2002. That led to an activation of the suspended sentence and on 4 November 2004 a prison sentence of 18 months was activated, the whole term of which remains outstanding. He was aware of those proceedings but did not appear in court, according to the judge's findings, and he was circulated as wanted.

It appears that Mr Hazi came to the United Kingdom in 2005 and he has established himself here in employment, no breach of criminal law. He has a partner and a step-son that he supports in this country and also a child that he supports in Poland. His partner is a student.

The judge was cognisant below that he was only 18 years old when the offence was committed and it is certainly the case that there has been a 16 year passage of time between the commission of that offence and today. The essential point that is made on his behalf both below and before this court is that that delay is so extensive it would now be oppressive to return him and in the alternative such family life that he has established in this country means that it would now be disproportionate and an unjustified interference with his family life to require him to return to Poland to serve a sentence of 18 months.

The difficulty with that submission is that the judge found that he plainly was aware of the 2004 proceedings and once he was aware that he was having to serve a sentence he deliberately fled the country and is thus to be regarded as a classic fugitive from justice.

The law of the United Kingdom is clear that in those circumstances, applying Lord Diplock's dictum in the well known case of Kakis v Government of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779 at 7823, delay resulting from an accused deliberately fleeing the country cannot be relied upon as a ground affording it to be either unjust or oppressive.

Although there is no hard rule excluding delay when one considers Article 8, nevertheless the fact remains that, one, the family life was established by this appellant in the knowledge of the sentence that he had to serve in Poland and thus carries significantly less weight than a family life established in different circumstances; and, secondly, there has been no evidence given either below or before this court of any attempt to make communication with the Polish authorities since 2005 which would have alerted them to the fact that he was in the United Kingdom.

The experience of this court and the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court emphasises that it is not reasonable to expect the Polish authorities to issue a general European Arrest Warrant promptly after it is know that the fugitive has disappeared, since that would require a translation into all languages of the European Union and it is reasonable for them to wait until there is information suggesting that he is in the United Kingdom. On the District Judge's findings in this case, that only arose in 2011.

In those circumstances, although the passage of time is considerable, I nevertheless conclude that the offence is not a trivial one and the principle of international cooperation to prevent fugitives from fleeing legitimate sentences imposed is an important consideration that weighs in the balance.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the judge properly considered the issues and reached a decision to which she was entitled to come and therefore, notwithstanding the submissions that Mr Hazi has made in person this morning, this appeal is dismissed.