UK case law
Madejski v Judicial Authority In Poland
[2012] EWHC ADMIN 159 · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2012
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
MR JUSTICE MITTING:
1. By an accusation European arrest warrant issued on 18 July 2011 the Regional Court in Szeczin in Poland seeks the extradition of the appellant so that he may be prosecuted for one offence of armed robbery, said to have taken place on 8 August 2005.
2. The warrant was issued on 31 December 2010 and certified by SOCA on 18 July 2011.
3. The appellant was arrested on 24 November 2011 and produced at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on the following day. The extradition hearing proceeded as an uncontested hearing on that day and District Judge Tubbs ordered his extradition.
4. By a notice of appeal issued in time the appellant seeks to challenge that decision on the following grounds: "(1) The District Judge has erred in his [sic] assessment whether or not the extradition would be compatible with Article 8. "(2) Another ground relied on is passage of time. "(3) Issue under Article 6. "(4) Issue under Article 3 (prison conditions)."
5. The appellant retained solicitors, Malcolm McGuinness, whose application to come off record I have just allowed. Marcin Kozik of that firm, who states that he has conduct of Polish extradition cases, says that he has received instructions from the appellant's wife who presented a handwritten letter from the appellant, but that he had thereafter received no further instructions. The appellant's wife, according to Mr Kozik (whose statement I accept), has confirmed to him: "... that her husband no longer wishes to pursue his appeal."
6. Even had he done so, there is simply no ground upon which I could allow it. The issues which he seeks to raise could have been raised before District Judge Tubbs and the evidence required to support them deployed. I have no reason to doubt that such evidence was available to the appellant in the sense explained in paragraph 32 of Fenyvesi . In any event, the bare assertions made in the notice of appeal do not begin to establish any of the bars sought to be argued.
7. For both of those reasons, this appeal is dismissed. ______________________________