Jankowski v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland

MR JUSTICE MITTING: The extradition of the appellant is sought by an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued by a judge of the Regional Court of Poznan on 10 September 2013 to stand trial for VAT fraud and money laundering allegedly committed between October 2006 and July 2007. The sum involved is substantial: 1.729m zlotys (£308,000). The warrant was certified by the National Crime Agency on 27 June 2014. The appellant was arrested on 16 October 2014. After a contested extradition hearing, his extradition was ordered by District Judge Goldspring on 16 February 2015.

The grounds of challenge were that it would be oppressive due to passage of time to extradite him and it would infringe his and his family's rights under Article 8 to do so. The district judge found that the appellant was not a fugitive and that the requesting authority were, as he put it, "culpable for" a delay of 7 1/2 to 8 years in total. The district judge gave himself an impeccable self-direction in law on the requirements of sections 14 and 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The facts were not in dispute. They were summarised by the district judge as follows. The appellant is an unmarried Polish citizen aged 39. He has lived with his partner, Justyna Wasielewska, since 2002. They have two children: a son, at the time of the extradition hearing aged 12, and a daughter aged 16. She will be 17 tomorrow. The appellant is not the natural father of either of those children but is the natural father of the daughter of him and Ms Wasielewska, who is now aged eight. He is close to her.

The appellant came to the United Kingdom in February 2008 in search of work. From May 2008 until February 2014, when he was dismissed in contentious circumstances, he was a food packer. Ms Wasielewska followed him to the United Kingdom in July 2008. She now runs her own cleaning business and is currently the family's sole breadwinner.

The appellant has had an operation on his right hand to alleviate a condition known as "trigger finger". He has appeared before me today bearing the signs of an operation of a similar kind on his left hand. The appellant was and is, in the colloquial phrase, a househusband, and is the person principally responsible for the care of the children.

The district judge concluded that oppression was not made out. The offence was serious; the delay, although long, was not, as he put it, "at the top end" of the range of delays encountered in this type of case; and, when he left Poland, the appellant knew that the Polish authorities would want to speak to him and knew that the allegations had not "gone away". There was no suggestion of injustice caused by the passage of time. Accordingly, and for those reasons, he rejected the challenge under section 14 of the 2003 Act.

As to Article 8, he was satisfied that the children would suffer emotionally as a result of the extradition of the appellant, but he was satisfied that arrangements could be put in place, with the support of the UK welfare services if needed, for their care while he was away. The district judge described the case as "not an easy case", but, having performed the balancing exercise carefully, considered that the serious nature of the alleged offences and the public interest in the United Kingdom upholding its treaty obligations outweighed the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his family.

The grounds of appeal repeat the grounds of challenge before the district judge. In a short statement made to me today in support of his appeal, the claimant repeats those grounds of challenge but also asserts that the warrant contains no evidence of any witness. In effect, what the appellant says is that the warrant does not set out a sufficient case to require him to stand trial in Poland. That submission misunderstands the function of the courts of the requested state under the European Arrest Warrant system: it is not for the district judge or for me to assess the strength of the case against a requested person in an accusation case.

As far as the circumstances of the appellant and his family are concerned, I, like the district judge, regard this as far from an easy case, but my task is principally one of review of the district judge's judgment. His judgment was impeccable. He reached a conclusion which it was open to him to reach. Indeed, on the facts which he found, which were not in dispute, I would have reached the same decision too. I am satisfied that his decision on both oppression and Article 8 was not wrong.

The only new factor which I take into account, because it is has occurred since the hearing, is the operation to the appellant's left hand. He is concerned that if extradited to Poland the treatment which he will require to facilitate his recovery from the operation may not be available to him. Extradition courts in this country have repeatedly stated that we accept that healthcare arrangements in Poland are in general sufficient to deal with problems such as this which the appellant suffers. There is simply no evidence to support the appellant's fear and I do not allow his appeal accordingly on the additional grounds which he now raises.

For the reasons which I have explained, this appeal must be dismissed.