Opozda, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland

[2012] EWHC 3031 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 3031 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
5 October 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Public law Extradition
Keywords
extradition extradition offence threats to kill police officers return to Poland appeal in absence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Threats to kill police officers constitute an extradition offence. An appeal against an order for return therefore has no merit where the conduct relied upon is properly characterised as threats to kill, even though other offences in the sentence are not extradition offences.

Factual background

The claimant appealed against a district judge’s order requiring his return to Poland to serve approximately three years and seven months remaining from sentences imposed for numerous offences.

The district judge discharged him in respect of insulting a police officer and failing to pay child maintenance, because those offences were not extradition offences. The claimant also argued that an offence involving threats against police officers was not an extradition offence. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether that ground disclosed an error in the district judge’s decision.

Held

  1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant’s argument that the offence involving threats to kill police officers was not an extradition offence had no merit.
  2. The conduct alleged involved using threats against police officers, including threats to deprive them of their lives, in order to prevent his arrest. Threats to kill plainly amount to an extradition offence.
  3. The district judge had correctly rejected that ground. The fact that two other offences—insulting a police officer and failing to pay child maintenance—were not extradition offences did not prevent return in respect of the remaining extradition offence and the outstanding custodial sentence.
  4. The claimant was on bail but did not attend. The court was satisfied that he knew of the proceedings, having been sent the respondent’s documents to the address he supplied and having been informed through his wife of the hearing arrangements. The appeal was dismissed in his absence.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • District judge: On 21 June, ordered the claimant’s return to Poland to serve the balance of custodial sentences, while discharging him in respect of two offences that were not extradition offences.
  • High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal against that order.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.