Kozlowski v Regional Court in Piotrkow Trybunalski

On 30^th October 2014 Sebastian Kozlowski was convicted of an offence known in Poland as mistreatment of a minor, that offence apparently being a continuing offence between June and December 2013. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

He did not attend his trial because he left Poland in the middle of December 2013. When he did so, he knew of the trial date. Thus he deliberately absented himself.

The European arrest warrant, which was a conviction warrant, was issued and certified in February 2017. The appellant was arrested in the United Kingdom on 9^th June 2017. Since then, he has been in custody, a fact of significance.

On 13^th July District Judge Snow in the Westminster Magistrates' Court ordered extradition. Before him, there were two issues.

First, was the offence of mistreatment of a minor an extradition offence? District Judge Snow concluded that he was satisfied that the offence was the equivalent to the offence of child cruelty under s.1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. He inferred from the particulars of the offence set out in the warrant, in particular the period of the offending and the particulars of the abuse, that the appellant had responsibility for the child, a necessary element of child cruelty as an offence in the UK. He also took into account evidence that Mr Kozlowski gave before him which acknowledged he had responsibility for the child.

On the second issue, the commonly raised issue of whether extradition would be incompatible with the appellant's Convention rights, in particular Art.8, the district judge concluded that there was little in the way of factors relevant to the appellant which counterbalanced the public interest in maintaining extradition arrangements.

The single judge gave leave to appeal in relation of each of those findings. I am quite satisfied that in fact there is no basis for an appeal on either ground.

First, in relation to the offence description, there was more than sufficient to justify the district judge's conclusion. This was an offence which was plainly equivalent to the offence of child cruelty within the United Kingdom.

In respect of Art.8, the district judge, who heard evidence from Mr Kozlowski, considered that he was a man who lied and exaggerated. The district judge doubted Mr Kozlowski's evidence about his partner's ill-health, which was a significant part of his Art.8 claim.

Whether the evidence now available demonstrates that the district judge was wrong in his conclusion is unclear. But in any event, Mr Kozlowski's absence does not effect his partner's position. So the district judge, even if he erred in one respect, did not err in his overall conclusion.

But the position is now very different to that which faced District Judge Snow. Mr Kozlowski has been in custody since 9^th June. He has now served just short of five and a half months in prison. Were the appeal to be dismissed on the grounds put forward, Mr Kozlowski would not be able to be removed for a period of 14 days, by which time he would in practical terms have served his entire sentence.

Given that Mr Kozlowski does have some private life in this country, the public interest in extradition when he would have effectively no sentence left to serve in Poland is far less than it was when District Judge Snow was considering the matter.

The situation is equivalent to that which faced OuseleyJ in Dudkiewicz v Regional Court in Warsaw (Poland) [2017] EWHC 2171 (Admin). Ouseley J in that case concluded the appropriate result was to allow the appeal and to discharge the arrest warrant. It plainly follows that in this case that is also the right course.

I allow the appeal, not on the grounds originally put forward, but because of the passage of time having led to Mr Kozlowski having served his sentence in this country and the public interest in extradition no longer having the same weight as it did previously.