Romanski v District Law Court In Tarnobrzeg, Poland

For the purposes of section 20(3) and (4) of the Extradition Act 2003, a person may deliberately absent himself from a trial without knowing the precise date of the final hearing. It is sufficient that he knows that the proceedings will continue and deliberately makes attendance or notification impossible, for example by leaving the country without providing a new address after being warned of that obligation. The court must be sure of deliberate absence on the facts. A later amendment to the relevant Framework Decision cannot be used to read down the clear statutory wording where Parliament has not amended the Act.

The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for assaulting police officers. The District Judge had discharged him in relation to offences of insulting a police officer, but ordered extradition on the remaining offences. The appeal concerned only the conviction resulting in a one-year sentence for an assault committed in May 2010.

The appellant argued that he had been convicted in his absence and was not entitled to a retrial or equivalent review under section 20(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. The requesting authority relied on sections 20(3) and (4), arguing that he had deliberately absented himself from the proceedings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court was sure that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from the trial within section 20(3) and (4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The trial was completed when the hearing in simplified mode took place on 14 October 2010 and sentence was pronounced. The earlier interrogation and guilty admission did not amount to a conviction in the appellant’s presence.
3. Knowledge of the precise date of the final hearing was unnecessary. A person may deliberately absent himself from a trial which he knows is inevitable by changing residence without notifying the court and then leaving the country, thereby making notification and attendance impossible. The court adopted and applied the similar approach in Skward v District Court in Legnica, Poland [2012] EWHC 2816 (Admin).
4. The principles concerning waiver of criminal-trial rights in Sejdovic v Italy (2006) 42 ECHR 360 did not assist the appellant. The evidence showed more than mere fugitive status: he had participated at the outset, knew that sentencing would follow, had been warned to notify the court of any change of address, and deliberately left Poland without doing so.
5. The observation concerning the later amendment to the Framework Decision was not a basis for construing section 20 differently. Following Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22, the clear statutory language could not be qualified by a subsequent treaty amendment where the legislation had not been amended. The amended Article 4A was in any event permissive rather than mandatory.

1. District Judge: On 14 August 2012, District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on the relevant convictions and discharged the appellant on the insulting-a-police-officer offences.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against extradition on the assault conviction was dismissed.