[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 >> Jakubik v Regional Court In Opole Poland [2013] EWHC 531 (Admin) (07 February 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/531.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 531 (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
		7 February 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of the district judge that the appellant should be removed to Poland to serve a sentence of some 2 years and 9 months for an offence of robbery which was committed in February 2009.
2. The appellant had appealed in Poland against that sentence, but before the appeal was disposed of he came to this country, he says in order to obtain money and work because of the economic situation in Poland. But he must accept, and indeed he does, that he was aware that there was a real possibility that he would have to serve a sentence of imprisonment, and he did not notify the Polish authorities of his decision to leave Poland.
3. No matters were raised before the district judge against removal, albeit he says that he did mention his present situation, namely that he has a partner who is now pregnant (I am told she is, as at today, some three months pregnant) and she will be left on her own if extradition takes place. There will be the obvious difficulties that she will face when she gives birth to the child later this year. He also has, as he puts it, "credit to pay" so that there are financial problems which will result if he is removed to Poland.
4. He was represented by solicitors, but they came off the record on 23 January last. It is perhaps rather obvious why they came off the record, because I am afraid the matters that he raises do not come anywhere near establishing what the law requires to be established to validate an Article 8 claim, which is what this amounts to. The hurdle set by the decision of the Supreme Court in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 is a high one. That is because of the importance of complying with the international obligation of this court in relation to extradition, and we are here faced with a substantial prison sentence for a clearly serious offence. I am afraid, in all those circumstances, this appeal has to be dismissed.