Wisniewski v Regional Court In Wloclawek Poland

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Coleman, given on 22 December 2012, ordering his removal to Poland to serve at least 2 years' imprisonment imposed for a number of offences, most of which were robberies. They were committed in 2004 and 2005. They are therefore clearly serious matters.

2. The appellant raised no substantive issues before the district judge. In his Notice of Appeal, which he lodged in person, this is said: "I don't want to go back for my family lives here. Everything is here, job, money, there is nothing for me in Poland." That obviously is the basis of an Article 8 claim on its face.

3. He was granted a representation order to an experienced firm of solicitors, Messrs Kaim Todner, who do a lot of extradition work. They instructed Ms Draycott, who equally has considerable experience in this field. As a result of what the solicitors and counsel were told, and their knowledge of law, certain advice was given to the appellant. Obviously, I cannot go into, nor would I expect to be told, the details of that, but the result was that the appellant wished to proceed without his solicitors, and an application was made on 1 February by the solicitors to come off the record. That application was certainly not, so far as I can find on the papers, granted. It does not appear that any decision has been made, and we are now, of course, at 7 February. The solicitors have not attended. It was not arranged specifically for counsel to attend, but by the greatest good fortune Ms Draycott has been in court and was able to assist me in considering whether there were any arguable grounds to support this appeal. She tells me that, in her view, there are none.

4. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the appellant having been represented by experienced solicitors and counsel, it is quite wrong that further expense should be incurred in allowing him to make representations which are bound to fail in person. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss this appeal.

5. Ms Draycott tells me that she understood that he was anxious if possible to apply for bail. He can of course do that in any event, even though his appeal has been dismissed, should he wish to make such an application. I do not encourage it - it is not likely to succeed in all the circumstances - but that is a matter for him. As it is, as I say, this appeal will be dismissed.

6. Thank you very much, Ms Draycott. You can have the usual order which covers your presence here today.

7. MS DRAYCOTT: My Lord, thank you very much.