[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 >> Pitas v Polish Judicial Authority [2012] EWHC 1312 (Admin) (02 May 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1312.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1312 (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: The extradition of the appellant is sought on three conviction European Arrest Warrants. The first was issued by the Regional Court at Tarnow on 26 June 2008 to serve 10 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court in Brzesko on 21 February 2007 for one offence of "concealing" stolen telephone cable on 19 August 2006 and two offences of theft of telephone cable on 22 and 23 May 2003 and 31 May and 1 June 2005. That warrant was certified by SOCA on 23 September 2011.
2. The second was issued by the same court on 17 August 2010 to serve 1 year, 5 months and 28 days of a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years imposed at the District Court in Tarnow on 8 June 2005 and 27 April 2006 for six offences of theft of telephone cable committed between 20 May 2004 and 31 August 2004, and one offence of theft and one of either burglary or attempted burglary, or theft or attempted theft, committed between November 2005 and February 2006. That warrant was certified by SOCA on 23 September 2011.
3. The third warrant was issued by the same regional court on 20 July 2008 to serve a 6-month sentence of imprisonment imposed at the District Court at Dabrowa Tarnowska on 27 March 2007 for theft, committed between July and September 2006. That warrant was certified by SOCA on 26 September 2011.
4. The appellant was arrested on 9 February 2012 and brought before District Judge Zani on 10 February. He was represented by experienced extradition solicitors who raised one issue, whether some of the offences in the second and third warrants were extradition offences because they related to thefts from abandoned buildings.
5. This ground of appeal has now been narrowed down to one offence only, the eighth listed in the second warrant. The offences listed in the second warrant begin with this opening paragraph:

"From November 2005 to 11 January 2006 in Radlów and Przybyslawice, municipality of Radlów, county of Tarnow, Malopolska Voivodeship following his original intentions and acting in a similar way and in short periods of time together with different people and also acting together and in agreement with Tomasz Wróbel and with two other persons, he appropriated the property which was worth 10030 Polish zlotys in total, this way he acted to the detriment of Antoni Borowski, he also tried to appropriate the property which was worth 1270 Polish zlotys in total to the detriment of Antoni Borowski and Commune Office in Radlów."

6. The ten individual offences are then set out. Eight of them are of completed thefts; two are of attempted thefts. It is only the second of the two which is in issue. That reads, under that general heading:

"On 11 January 2006 in Radlów he tried to appropriate a malfunctioning fuel bowser from a closed fuel station which was worth in total 270 Polish zlotys, however he did not achieve his aim as he escaped when he saw police patrol."

7. Mr Butt, for the appellant, submits that there is no equivalent offence in English law because the warrant does not spell out clearly that although he attempted to take the fuel bowser, and that it was worth something, it might well have been abandoned or be affixed to land which itself had been abandoned. As every law student knows, it is not possible in English law to steal abandoned property. Consequently, Mr Butt submits, this offence has no English equivalent.
8. The short an answer to it is that when one takes the opening paragraph of this warrant into account, it is clear, despite a typographical error, that it is asserted in the warrant that it belongs to somebody, the Commune Office in Radlów. All of the other offences were committed in Przybyslawice and are clearly in respect of property owned by, and to the detriment of, Antoni Borowski. The eighth offence is the only one said to have been committed in Radlów, and the Commune Office in Radlów is the only body identified as having suffered detriment as a result of the dishonest activity of the appellant.
9. Accordingly, I have no doubt whatever that the warrant alleges that the eighth offence was committed against somebody who did own the malfunctioning fuel bowser, namely the Commune Office in Radlów. If that were not by itself sufficient, then the addition of the two sums in offences 7 and 8, 100 Polish zlotys and 270 Polish zlotys, produces the same amount set out in the opening paragraph, if it is assumed that there is a typographical error in the seventh offence and that it should read "1,000", not "100", Polish zlotys. That seems to me to be the only sensible reading of this warrant, that the two offences of attempted appropriation of property amounting in total to 1,270 Polish zlotys were the offences set out in items 7 and 8 of the warrant.
10. For those reasons, I am satisfied that this warrant accurately identifies the eighth offence as being one which has an English equivalent. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
11. MR BUTT: My Lord, it might be nothing turns on it, but the location beginning "P-R-Z-Y", Przybyslawice, looking at page 8 of the warrant, is in fact in Radlów.
12. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes, but that is said to be in the district of Radlów, whereas the only offence not in Przybyslawice is said to be in Radlów.
13. MR BUTT: My Lord, yes.
14. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Commendable attention to detail, but I am afraid it does not get you anywhere.
15. MR BUTT: The only other application is for assessment of legal aid funding, if it is required.
16. MR JUSTICE MITTING: If you need it, you shall have it.