Radwan v Poland Sad Okregowy Tarnow

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS : This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Snow, who on 3 June 2012 directed that the appellant should be returned to Poland in order to serve sentences totalling 12 months' imprisonment which had been imposed for two offences of fraud committed in 2006. The appellant says, and I have no reason to doubt, that he understood the sentences to have been suspended, and certainly there appears to have been no requirement that he serve them immediately. Be that as it may, he says that he did not appreciate that had no right to remove himself from Poland without keeping in touch with the authorities or receiving permission from the probation officer, or whoever, to come here. He came here, he says, in 2007 with his wife and three children. His wife, unfortunately, is not well. She has had to have an operation, which took place last May, and she is still in need of some medical care and cannot carry heavy items and equally will find great difficulty if she suffers stress, and clearly if he is removed to Poland there will be a degree of stress for her. Unfortunately too, his eldest son, who was 13 years old at the time, had had a bone removed from his foot and reconstruction surgery. That took place in May of last year. I am told that he is still under medical care and may well need a further operation. However, he is mobile now and there is no requirement that his father remain in order to help to look after him at this stage. 2. The difficulty that the claimant faces is that, as made clear by the Supreme Court in the decision in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 , the obligation on this court to support the United Kingdom's requirement to meet its international obligations in dealing with European Arrest Warrants means that where there is a question particularly of serving a sentence of imprisonment which had been imposed by the foreign court which has been avoided by leaving the country and coming to this country, it will take a very strong case of interference with family life to justify the court coming to the conclusion that it would be disproportionate to return. 3. The appellant is the family breadwinner and there is no question but that hardship will be caused to his wife and children were he to be returned to serve the sentence of 12 months imprisonment. However, they are Polish, they came here with him, and although the economic situation in Poland is unsatisfactory so far as they are concerned, there is, I am afraid, no reason why they should not go back to Poland while he returns to serve his sentence there. Whether he will have to serve the whole sentence or whether he will be able to be released early for good behaviour is a matter, no doubt, for the Polish authorities to decide. But I am afraid this case does not surmount the hurdle which has been erected by the Supreme Court in enabling this court to say that it would be disproportionate for the appellant to be returned. 4. In those circumstances, I am afraid that this appeal must be dismissed.