Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Admin 1023
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
SIR STEPHEN SILBER
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)
B E T W E E N:
DARIUSZ ANDRZEJ KANTOROWICZ
Appellant
- v -
CPS ON BEHALF OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN POLAND
Respondent
Computer Aided Transcription by
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Appellant appeared in person
Mr David Sternberg (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit)
appeared on behalf of the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Monday 9th March 2015
SIR STEPHEN SILBER:
Dariusz Andrzej Kantorwicz appeals against the order of District Judge Devas made on 18th January 2015 to order his extradition pursuant to two conviction European Arrest Warrants. The first was issued by the Regional Court in Poznan on 7th October 2013 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 18th June 2014. The appellant was given a suspended sentence of one year's imprisonment for the offence of obtaining property by deception. He failed to comply with the conditions and he committed an offence against property, with the result that the suspended sentence was activated.
The second European Arrest Warrant was issued by the District Court in Poznan on 26th November 2013 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 18th June 2014. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for theft committed in 2006. He came to England and has been unlawfully at large.
When the matter came in front of the District Judge, the appellant argued that his extradition was incompatible with the rights of his partner and children and of himself under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The District Judge rejected that argument. He considered all the relevant authorities and concluded that the appellant's extradition was compatible with his and his family's article 8 rights. No fresh evidence was put in, but he appealed.
Miss Natasha Draycott was instructed on the appellant's behalf. She attended court today but she said that she wished to withdraw because there were no grounds on which to appeal. I made the appropriate order.
The appellant, who then pursued the appeal, then addressed me through an interpreter. He referred to his mother's deteriorating health. He told me that he has problems with his health and that he suffers from advanced depression. He has two children.
It is abundantly clear that the appellant's article 8 rights are outweighed by the need to enforce the European Framework Directive. It was explained by Lord Judge CJ in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338 at [132] that
"When resistance to extradition is advanced, as in effect it is in each of these appeals, on the basis of the article 8 entitlement of the dependent children and the interests of society in their welfare, it should only be in very rare cases that extradition may properly be avoided if, given the same broadly similar facts, and after making proportionate allowance as we do for the interests of dependent children, the sentencing courts here would nevertheless be likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence: any other approach would be inconsistent with the principles of international comity."
I have no doubt whatsoever that the English courts would have imposed a substantial custodial sentence for the appellant's crimes, even taking account of the interests of his family. This is not one of those “very rare cases” referred to by Lord Judge. If he is extradited, his partner will be able to remain here, and his mother will have the assistance of the local Social Services.
The appellant's attempt to have the warrant withdrawn in Poland has been unsuccessful.
For all those reasons this appeal must be dismissed.