Apanowicz v District Court In Zomosc Poland

In an extradition appeal, the court may proceed on the assumption that a foreign suspended sentence was properly activated for non-compliance, even where the precise extent of the breach is disputed. Permission to leave the sentencing country does not excuse later failure to comply with conditions such as returning, maintaining contact with probation services and providing updated residence details. Extradition is not disproportionate merely because the underlying offences were relatively modest, the remaining sentence was comparatively short, or extradition would cause hardship to the person and family concerned. The foreign court’s decision to activate the sentence should be respected where, on the face of the warrant, it was entitled to do so.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s order for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned two commercial burglaries and a suspended sentence which had subsequently been activated for alleged non-compliance with probation requirements.

Before the High Court, the appellant produced documentation showing that his probation officer had permitted him to travel to the United Kingdom. The court admitted that evidence, but the appellant accepted that he had remained abroad beyond the proposed return date and had ceased contact with the probation service for a period. The central issue was whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court admitted the appellant’s additional probation documentation because it supported a point wrongly rejected by the District Judge.
2. The evidence established that the appellant had initially travelled to the United Kingdom with the probation officer’s permission. That permission was founded on his stated intention to return to Poland in June 2012 and did not authorise indefinite residence abroad. He had also undertaken to maintain contact with the probation service and to report his situation regularly.
3. The appellant accepted that, after remaining in the United Kingdom for about seven months, he ceased contact with the probation service for approximately three months. Those circumstances were capable of triggering activation of the suspended sentence, notwithstanding uncertainty about the precise extent of the breach and the existence of permission to travel.
4. The court treated the activation of the sentence as properly made for the purpose of the proportionality assessment. It was entitled, and effectively obliged, to assume that the Polish sentence had been properly activated for non-compliance, even if the breach was less serious than stated in the warrant.
5. The suspended-sentence system formed the quid pro quo for imposing sentences which might otherwise have been immediate terms of imprisonment. Persons subject to such conditions had to comply with them meticulously. The Polish court’s decision to activate the sentence was therefore to be respected.
6. The relatively modest value and circumstances of the offences, the short remaining sentence, the appellant’s family circumstances, employment and time spent in custody did not make extradition disproportionate. Extradition would cause hardship, but that hardship was a consequence of non-compliance and remained proportionate.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appellant to rely on additional evidence but dismissed the appeal against the extradition order.