[2025] EWHC 2475 (Admin)

The appellant is wanted on a conviction warrant issued by a Circuit Court of Lodz, Poland on 17 February 2021 and certified by the NCA on 23 October 2023. The warrant is based on the judgment of the District Court in Lodz on 9 March 2011 and valid from 17 March 2011.

The warrant is issued for a sentence of two years of which there is one year, nine months and 12 days remaining to be served. The warrant details that the respondent was present at the trial resulting in the decision.

The warrant is issued for a single offence of robbery which is described as follows. On night of 17 November 2011, the victim was returning home and was assaulted by the appellant, who tripped him from behind so that he fell to the ground. Whilst on the ground, the appellant searched the victim, held him down and stole from him a phone worth 190 sterling equivalent. The warrant details this is an offence of violent robbery within the terms of the Criminal Code. The judgment of the court was delivered following a plea bargain. The sentence of two years was originally suspended for a period of five years and the appellant was also fined.

The appellant was placed under the terms of a probation officer to do unpaid work and to refrain from alcohol. The judgment took effect from 17 March 2011.

On 25 June 2013,the sentence was activated. This was because the appellant was found to have committed an offence of theft; and this was treated as similar offending to that concerning the robbery. He was detained in prison on 27 August 2013. On 12 November 2013, the Court of Appeal, having considered the decision at first instance, referred the case back for a retrial and the appellant was released from prison. On 5 March 2024, following the retrial, the court of first instance activated the two-year sentence. On 12 May 2014, having considered an appeal lodged on behalf of the appellant against the decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision because the appellant had committed the offence of theft, had evaded supervision and had not paid the whole fine. The appellant was present at court when the issue of activation was considered, which took place on 12 May 2014. On 6 June 2014, the court deducted the time for provisional detention. That is the period 28 August to 12 November 2014. This documentation was served on an adult household member on 15 July 2014.

On 10 July 2024, it was ordered that the appellant appear at the remand centre and this, too, was served on the adult household member on 21 July 2024. The appellant, however, did not appear. Searches did not find him. It is said that his parents had said that he moved out and did not contact them. It is also said that neighbours had expressed the view that he had moved to the United Kingdom

On 21 August 2015, the court suspended enforcement and an arrest warrant was sent but not collected.

At paragraph 7 of his judgment, the district judge noted the appellant opposed extradition on three bases: section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 concerning the passage of time, which would make it unjust or oppressive for the appellant to be extradited; article 3 of the ECHR, owing to the treatment to which the appellant said he would be subjected in Poland; and article 8 of the ECHR, whereby the appellant asserted that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with his rights under that article and with the rights of his partner and his two minor children.