Jabrzyk v The Special Crime Division - CPS [2015] EWHC 692 (Admin)
[1]MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: The appellant, who is in his mid 20s, appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Ikram, made on 4 December 2014 in the Westminster Magistrates' Court, to order his extradition to Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the respondent on 28 March 2014 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 20 August 2014 for the surrender of the appellant to Poland to serve a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment imposed for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed on 10 May 2009.[2]The offence involved the appellant, acting with another, punching and kicking the victim, causing general bruising, mainly to the head, and numerous abrasions around the eyes. The background chronology is set out in some detail in the judgment of the District Judge.[3]The appellant gave evidence at the extradition hearing. The sole issue at that hearing was whether his extradition was compatible or otherwise with his and his family's Article 8 rights.[4]The District Judge found as a fact that the appellant was not a fugitive and further found, having conducted the requisite balancing exercise in accordance with the authorities, that the appellant's extradition would not amount to a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, his sister or his mother. An appeal was lodged upon the sole ground that the judge was wrong to reach that conclusion.[5]Appearing on the appellant's behalf, Ms Hill has informed me that there is no argument that can be put forward in support of that ground. Having had the opportunity to consider the District Judge's judgment and in the light of the recent case of Belbin, that view is not at all surprising. In those circumstances, no argument being advanced in support of the appeal, it is dismissed.[6]Now, consequential orders, if any?[7]MS HILL: None, I think.MR JUSTICE SWEENEY: Thank you.