Skoczylas v Regional Court in Kielce, Poland [2015] EWHC 705 (Admin)

Case No CO/5636/2014[2015] EWHC 705 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Monday, 9 February 2015
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE
Between
LUKASZ SKOCZYLASAppellantv
Between
REGIONAL COURT IN KIELCE, POLANDRespondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms U Bhatt (instructed by Lloyds PR Solicitors) appeared for AppellantMr B Gibbins (instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit) appeared for Respondent
J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: The appellant appeals against the decision of District Judge Blake made on 28 November 2014 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court ordering his extradition to Poland in respect of two European Arrest Warrants. EAW 1 relates to two matters: first, the appellant is wanted to face an allegation that between 1 October 2009 and 31 January 2010 he supplied a named individual on occasions with 10 grams of marijuana and on two occasions with 10 grams of amphetamine; second, he is wanted to serve 5 months and 28 days which remain outstanding from a 6-month prison sentence imposed for an offence of possession of marijuana committed on 16 February 2010.[2]On EAW 2, the appellant is wanted firstly to face an allegation that between 1 January 2010 and 11 March 2011 he was in possession of at least 1,344 grams of herbal cannabis and not less than 2,381 grams of amphetamine. Second, he is wanted to face an allegation of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs in the course of which, it is said, he acquired marijuana and amphetamines for the purpose of reselling them. 11 instances of reselling amphetamines totalling 1,881 grams and 14 instances of reselling marijuana, totalling between 1,344 grams and 1,844 grams, to two named individuals are specified. EAW 1 was issued on 13 December 2013 and it was certified by the NCA on 19 February 2014. EAW 2 was issued by the Regional Court in Kielce on 3 April 2014 and was certified by the NCA on 11 April 2014.[3]Miss Bhatt, for the appellant, advances two grounds of challenge. First, she submits that the warrants give insufficiency of detail and accordingly are not section 2 compliant. EAW 1 does not comply with section 2(6) as it does not give sufficient particulars of the conviction. Miss Bhatt refers to the decision in Sandi v The Craiova Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin) and submits that the appellant must know the entire case against him so that he can consider and put forward defences. The warrant fails to particularise the amount of drugs the appellant is said to have possessed. As for EAW 2, the particulars fail adequately to particularise the exact dates on which the supply of cannabis took place. Further, she submits, the amounts of drugs are loosely outlined.[4]I reject these submissions. The appellant of his own admission was present when convicted and must therefore have known the quantity involved. As regards the accusation matters in both EAWs, I am satisfied that sufficient information is provided to the appellant to enable him to know what is alleged and to prepare arguments against extradition. The offending periods and location of the alleged offences are specified, as are the types and quantities of the drug and the persons to whom they were allegedly supplied.[5]Further, the appellant challenges the decision on Article 8 grounds. Applying the principles set out in HH and Norris, the appellant submits that his mother's ill-health is such that the balancing exercise should have come down against extradition. Miss Bhatt relies on a further statement by the appellant, dated 3 February 2015, in which he confirms that his mother's health has not changed for the better at all, and she still suffers from the illnesses previously diagnosed. He contends that she is not receiving proper social service support or support with housing, and his partner cannot assist his mother.[6]The judge set out his findings on the Article 8 ground at paragraph 3.1 to 3.7 of his decision. At paragraph 3.4, he said:
"In any event there was a very positive response from the Redbridge Social Services as to how they could provide her with appropriate care and assistance."
At paragraph 3.7 he continued:
"I considered neither his mother's ability to look after herself or her medical condition was such that she was physically dependent upon her son."
In my judgment, those were findings that he was entitled to make on the evidence. The further statement of the appellant does not assist him in this regard.[7]With regard to the mother's medical condition, Miss Bhatt submits there is a lacuna on the evidence in terms of the care that she will receive and needs to receive. I am satisfied from the terms of the letter of 12 August 2013 from the London Borough of Redbridge that Miss Bhatt referred to that necessary care will be put in place. The appellant absconded; he is a fugitive. These are properly regarded as serious offences. The appellant has not, in my view, identified any error in the balancing exercise that was conducted.[8]Accordingly, the Article 8 challenge fails. For the reasons that I have given, I uphold the order for the appellant's extradition to Poland and dismiss the appeal.