Pilch, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Przemysl

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal against the order of District Judge Arbuthnot given on 15 June 2012 to order the appellant's extradition to Poland to serve a total of two years and nine months' imprisonment which was the balance of two custodial sentences imposed for offences of grievous bodily harm, obviously a very serious matter. However as he accepts he chose to come to this country and avoid serving the balance of those sentences.

2. The appeal is based upon an Article 8 claim, that is to say the adverse effect upon his partner with whom he has been living in this country and the baby who was born as recently as September. He will not be in a position to look after them. He recognises however that she was aware of the precarious nature of his position here. She is herself Polish. Albeit, as he puts it, the quality of life will be far worse in Poland, she can in principle return to Poland. However having regard to decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the matters that he raises are not capable of showing that it would be disproportionate to return him or a breach of his human rights so to do.

3. In those circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.

4. The claimant has asked for bail pending his removal, largely on the basis that he has not yet had the opportunity even to see the baby who was born last month. I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with that application. However I am not in a position to reach any decision. I would ask therefore the Crown Prosecution Service to make inquiries with a view, one hopes, to be able to decide this afternoon whether it will be possible to grant bail. It would have to be on conditions which obviously Mr Pilch recognises would be essential.

5. I will have inquiries made. Wait until this afternoon and I will see what can be done. I do not make any promises. ( Adjourned - claimant was granted bail on conditions )