Miechowicz v Sad Okregowy In Kielce Poland

On an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court will not determine whether a foreign sentence should be reduced or whether clemency should be granted. Those matters belong to the requesting state’s courts. Hardship to dependants caused by the requested person’s imprisonment is not, without more, a disproportionate bar to removal where the hardship arises from employment and family support established in the United Kingdom.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Zani’s decision of 12 November 2012 ordering his removal to Poland to serve the remaining 12 months of a sentence for theft and forgery. He relied on the domestic context of the offences, repayment of the alleged loss, alleged pressure to plead guilty, and the effect of imprisonment on his dependent children. The central issues were whether those matters created a bar to removal and whether removal would be disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Polish warrant remained in force after the possibility of withdrawal had been rejected.
2. The court could not entertain challenges to the underlying conviction or sentence, including the claimant’s assertion that he had been forced to plead guilty. Questions concerning enforcement of the sentence, reduction of the sentence, or clemency were matters for the Polish courts.
3. The claimant’s children depended on money he earned in the United Kingdom. His removal and imprisonment would cause hardship because that financial support would cease. That hardship did not make removal disproportionate. The position would have been materially the same had he remained in Poland and faced the sentence there.
4. There was consequently no bar to removal. Bail was continued on the existing terms until notification of the arrangements for removal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Zani’s decision of 12 November 2012 was dismissed. Bail was continued on the existing terms.