Kosowski v Regional Court In Kielce, Poland

1. Kamil Kosowski appeals against an order of Senior District Judge Riddle made on 22 nd September 2014 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court by which he ordered that the appellant be extradited to Poland. It had been sought pursuant to a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued by the Regional Court in Kielce, Poland, on 30 th April 2014, certified by the National Crime Agency on 16 th June 2014 and which seeks enforcement of the order of the Regional Judge in Kielce on 19 th June in ordering execution of a sentence of one year ten months and ten days' imprisonment imposed on 14 th April 2011.

2. The extradition was contested on the basis of its alleged incompatibility with Article 8. The appellant adopted his proof of evidence and was cross-examined. Evidence from his partner was admitted, and the District Judge found that the appellant was aged 19 at the time of the offence; that he was one of two men who were jointly responsible for a robbery in which the victim was beaten and had his phone and watch stolen. The appellant pleaded guilty in April 2011 and a sentence of two years' imprisonment, suspended for five years was imposed. During the period of the suspension, the appellant committed a further offence. The result was that the sentence of two years' imprisonment was activated.

3. The appellant has a 2 year old daughter and a partner. Prior to his remand in custody he was the sole provider. He was otherwise of good character and had been in employment since his arrival in the United Kingdom.

4. The principles of law are not in dispute. They were first considered by the Supreme Court in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 , and were revisited by the same court in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 , [2013] 1 AC 338 . In that case the Supreme Court had been asked to consider the extent to which the approach in Norris should be modified, where the interests of children were involved. The basic principles are set out in paragraphs 8, 30, 82 and 83.

5. The case for the appellant is that the District Judge failed to take account of the circumstances of the appellant's private and family in England which had subsisted for three years and which showed a record of employment and good character. It was suggested that this was a case where the appellant's partner and young child would suffer as a result of his extradition.

6. To my mind, this is a case in which it is necessary to carrying out the balancing exercise. The appellant committed a serious offence in which the victim was beaten and knocked to the ground. Second, the appellant was given the benefit of a suspended sentence, which was activated only after he committed a further offence. Third, the appellant's fugitive status was confirmed by the fact that he was hiding in the loft when an attempt was made to arrest him. An additional factor is that although the appellant has been in custody since 9 th July (four and a half months), his partner and the child have been able to cope without him. They have family both here and in Poland.

7. In my view, the Senior District Judge's assessment of the evidence and his application of the law are unimpeachable. It would be wholly proportionate in this case to dismiss the appeal, so that the appellant will be extradited.