Michniacki v District Court In Kalisz Poland

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a decision on an appeal of the District Judge ordering the appellant's extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling three and a half years' imprisonment imposed for some eight offences, largely of theft, one of receiving goods stolen from a robbery and one I think of criminal damage. The offences were committed in 2004. The appellant asserts that they were committed when he had a serious drugs addiction and he has got over that now. He also says that he was a police informant and he had been threatened, and so had his girlfriend, by various gang members, and that if he goes to serve his sentence in a Polish prison he is likely to be assaulted or worse by those.

2. This type of allegation is one which is commonly made in cases such as this and I am well aware that there is no reason why the Polish authorities should not provide necessary protection if that protection is needed.

3. So far as the hearing before the District Judge was concerned, no matters were specifically raised to challenge the extradition other than the fear it seems, or so I am told, of what might happen to him. But as I say, there is in my view nothing in that.

4. The Appellant tells me that he has made a claim for asylum the day before yesterday in an endeavour, no doubt, to avoid extradition. I am afraid that is a singularly unimpressive claim. If there was any merit in an asylum claim it would, and should, have been made a long time ago and I am not going to allow that to influence my judgment in this case.

5. The reality, I am afraid, is that the Article 2 and 3 concerns are not established at all. So far as Article 8 is concerned, he says that he has been here since 2006. He knew full well that he had at least 12 months of a sentence to serve, but decided that he would prefer to avoid that by coming to this country and he came with his girlfriend and son. There is, in my judgment, no reason why they should not return with him. I know that the Supreme Court is considering what is the correct approach to Article 8, specifically whether the approach dictated by the case of Norris should prevail. What I will do is to approach this case on the basis that a lesser hurdle than that created by Norris exists and consider whether, on general principles, it is proportionate to return. I should say that I would be surprised if the Supreme Court takes the view that Article 8 itself generally has any materiality in relation to extradition, or indeed the serving of sentences imposed for criminal conduct. Be that as it may, I approach it, as I say, on the basis of proportionality and I have no doubt whatever that return and so extradition in the circumstances of this case is proportionate. In all those circumstances this appeal is dismissed.