Ryba v Regional Court In Lodz, Poland [2014] EWHC 4583 (Admin)

Case No CO/4323/2014[2014] EWHC 4583 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Monday 24 th November 2014
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
SIR STEPHEN SILBER
Between
ARKADIUSZ RYBAAppellant
B E T W E E N:
- v -
Between
REGIONAL COURT IN LODZ, POLANDRespondent
Computer Aided Transcription byWordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)190 Fleet Street, London EC4Telephone No: 020 7421 4040(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Appellant appeared (via video-link, and with the assistance of an interpreter) in person for in personMr Brian Gibbins (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit)appeared for Respondent
J U D G M E N TMonday 24 th November 2014SIR STEPHEN SILBER:
[1]Arkadiusz Ryba appeals against a decision made at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 12th September 2014 by which it ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland, pursuant to an European Arrest Warrant which was issued in the Regional Court in Lodz. It related to an accusation that, between 1st September 2004 and 19th June 2006, the appellant participated in a criminal gang engaged in supplying illegal drugs in Poland. It is said that in that period he liaised with others within the group, purchasing and reselling not less than 100 grams of amphetamine sulphate. It was found during the hearing in the magistrates' court that the appellant was a fugitive from justice against whom there were serious allegations, and that he had no family or fixed abode in the United Kingdom.[2]It was said in the appellant's favour that the alleged offending took place ten years ago when he was only 20. The District Judge concluded that, having undertaken the balancing exercise and having weighed in favour of and against discharge, he had no hesitation in finding that the very serious allegation within the request was not outweighed by those matters.[3]The appellant has appealed. He contends that the surrender would be a disproportionate interference with his private life. He has appeared today by video-link, without representation, and has accepted that he wishes to return to Poland and does not wish to pursue his appeal.[4]Under section 21A(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, I can only order extradition if I am satisfied that to do so would be compatible with the appellant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that extradition would be proportionate. Subsection (3) requires me to take account of only the following matters:
"(a) the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence; (b) the likely penalty that would be imposed if the defendant was found guilty of the extradition offence; and (c) the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures that would be less coercive than the extradition of the defendant."
[5]I am quite satisfied that it would be compatible with the appellant's rights and that extradition would be proportionate because of the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and the likely sentence that will be imposed upon him.[6]Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.