[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Mazgula v Regional Court In Bielsko-Biala Poland [2012] EWHC 1307 (Admin) (02 May 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1307.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1307 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		2 May 2012

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: This was called on as an appeal against a conviction European arrest warrant, issued out of the regional court in Bielsko-Biala on 21 September 2010. It was certified by SOCA on 14 November 2011. The extradition of the appellant is sought to serve two years and two months' imprisonment out of a total sentence of 2 years and 8 months for offences of robbery and theft committed on 28 May 2008 and 1 June 2007, imposed by the district court in Zywiec on 22 December 2008.
2. On 28 February 2012 after a contested hearing, extradition was ordered by District Judge Rose. The appellant contended that his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if he were extradited. The grounds are familiar in Polish cases. He alleges that Polish prisons are overcrowded and that he is at risk from other prisoners. Nothing further is alleged. He also claimed to have a partner, who he did not name to District Judge Rose, who has given birth to a child. Consequently, he contends that his extradition would be prohibited under Article 8.
3. These familiar grounds of challenge are likely, indeed unless the evidence alters materially, will inevitably be dismissed by the judge who ultimately determines this appeal for familiar reasons. The Article 3 claim goes nowhere near establishing the degree of international consensus required to justify the claim that prison conditions or the risk from other prisoners in Poland is so high as to put the United Kingdom in breach of the appellant's rights under Article 3. His claim under Article 8 gets nowhere near the threshold established in Norris v United States of America, or even, if that threshold is to be relaxed in HH, any likely relaxation.
4. However, today and for the first time he has raised a further ground. In April 2012, he intimated a claim to asylum to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It relies on precisely the same grounds as those on which he sought to resist extradition. Section 39 of the Extradition Act 2003 prevents extradition while an asylum claim is pending. He tells me, and I have no reason to question his assertion in this respect, that he has not yet received a response from the Home Office. When that response is given, it will inevitably be that his claim is rejected and certified as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
5. This is the first time that I have encountered this particular device for avoiding extradition, but, given that it is expressly covered by section 39, it is likely to be repeated in other cases. That would be a disturbing trend if it were to occur.
6. I have only granted an adjournment in this case because it seems that the Home Office has not yet responded in the manner that it will inevitably do to this asylum claim. It is to be hoped that if this device, for it is a device, is used in the future, that UKBA will set up a means of dealing with related asylum claims promptly and efficiently so as not to frustrate the process of lawful extradition.
7. I have granted your adjournment. You should not anticipate that your appeal will ultimately succeed. This case will be listed on the earliest occasion on which you or the requesting state notify the court that the Secretary of State has responded to your asylum claim in the manner that I expect.
8. You should be permitted to take a copy of the asylum document that you have there, but it must be returned ultimately to Mr Mazgula when you have done so.
9. MS HINTON: My Lord, yes, I will ensure that it gets back to him once a copy has been made.
10. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes. That concludes this hearing.