Wasilewski v Judicial Authority of Radom, Poland

In a conviction case, extradition is legally available where the sentence imposed reaches the statutory minimum, even if the underlying offences appear trivial. The court does not determine whether pursuing extradition is desirable as a matter of policy. That question belongs to the requesting state. The appellant’s good behaviour in the United Kingdom does not prevent extradition. Delay will not bar extradition unless it is sufficient in law to engage the relevant limitation or passage-of-time rule.

The appellant challenged an order of District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland following convictions for two offences of criminal damage. He had received suspended sentences of 10 months’ imprisonment for damaging a telephone booth and a shop door, and had served only a few days.

Several grounds were abandoned. The remaining issue was whether the offences were too trivial to justify extradition. The appellant also relied on his conduct in the United Kingdom and delay in relation to one offence.

1. Appeal dismissed. There was no legal basis for preventing extradition.
2. The appeal notice was entered in time. Since the seventh day fell on a Sunday, the appellant had until the following Monday to enter the notice, applying the approach referred to in Mucelli v Albania. [1]
3. In a conviction case, a sentence of four months’ imprisonment is sufficient for extradition to be ordered. Each sentence imposed in this case was 10 months, so the statutory threshold was exceeded.
4. The apparent triviality of the offences could raise a question of policy, but it did not create a legal bar. Whether such cases should be pursued was a matter for the Polish authorities, not the court.
5. The appellant’s failure to misbehave in the United Kingdom was irrelevant. The delay, including in relation to the earlier offence, was insufficient to raise any legal bar.
6. The triviality argument had not been raised before the District Judge, but it could properly be raised on appeal because it was a pure point of law that did not depend on the evidence, applying Hoholm v Norway. [7]

The court made the usual legal aid assessment order.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 30 July 2012.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.