Starzomski v Regional Court, Kielce Poland

On an extradition appeal, the court does not determine whether the requested person is guilty or innocent. Issues about presence, alibi, sentence calculation and the effect of evidence are ordinarily matters for the requesting state’s courts. A warrant is sufficiently particularised where it identifies the relevant period, premises, victims and amounts lost, even if each offence is not assigned an individual date. Extradition will breach Article 8 only where the individual and family circumstances make it disproportionate. A claim of inadequate legal representation requires evidence of an actual failure to provide a fair hearing.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s order of 28 March 2014 directing his extradition to Poland on a mixed accusation and conviction warrant. The accusation concerned alleged continuous frauds involving 122 victims, together with allegations of forgery and handling or theft of cars. The conviction warrant concerned earlier deception and related offences.

He challenged the particularity of the warrant, asserted that he had been in the United Kingdom during part of the alleged offending, claimed that he had served the sentence referred to in the conviction warrant, alleged inadequate legal representation, and relied on Article 8. The central issues were whether the warrant was valid and whether any of those matters required extradition to be refused.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order was upheld.
2. The accusation warrant was adequately particularised for the purposes of Section 2. A date range, specified office premises, identified victims and stated losses sufficiently described the alleged offences. It was unnecessary to provide an individual date for each victim.
3. The court would not decide whether the appellant had committed the alleged offences. If evidence showed that he was in the United Kingdom, its significance for guilt or innocence was for the Polish court.
4. The appellant’s contention that he had served the whole sentence was unsupported by the translated documents. If returned, he could pursue that contention in Poland.
5. There was no breach of the right to a fair hearing. The appellant had received advice from several firms of solicitors and had been given an adjournment to obtain representation. His complaints about the conduct of his lawyers and the opportunity to present evidence did not establish an unfair extradition hearing.
6. Extradition was not disproportionate under Article 8. The appellant’s residence, work, relationship and care for his partner’s stepson did not outweigh the extradition request. The district judge was entitled to regard his evidence as unreliable and to find no sufficiently strong personal or family circumstances preventing extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the order of District Judge Coleman dated 28 March 2014 dismissed.