Waszkiewicz v District Court of Poznan, Poland

1. MR JUSTICE KEITH: On 12 March 2013, the appellant, Mariusz Waszkiewicz, was arrested pursuant to two European Arrest Warrants which had been issued by the Regional Court in Gdansk and the Military Court in Poznan in Poland on 11 September 2008 and 9 October 2010 respectively. The warrants had been certified by the Crown Agents of the Crown Office in Scotland and by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 14 May 2010 and 20 February 2013 respectively. The warrants were what are colloquially called conviction warrants. The first sought Mr Waszkiewicz's extradition so that he could serve a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment for stealing someone's mobile phone. The second sought his extradition so that he could serve a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for criminal damage, in which he caused damage equivalent to just less than £2,000. An extradition hearing took place at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 26 March 2013. Mr Waszkiewicz was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, District Judge Zani ordered his extradition to Poland. He now appeals against that order. 2. Poland has been designated as a category 1 territory pursuant to section 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (" the Act "). Accordingly, Mr Waszkiewicz's extradition to Poland is governed by Part 1 of the Act . Section 20 of the Act , which is in Part 1, requires the person whose extradition is being sought to be discharged if he was convicted in his absence, and was not entitled to be retried unless he deliberately absented himself from his trial. Mr Waszkiewicz's case at the extradition hearing was that he had been convicted in his absence, and that he had not deliberately absented himself from his trial. That bar to extradition was ruled unavailable to him because the box in the warrants which has to be completed when someone was tried in their absence had either been crossed out or been said to be not applicable. The authorities say that that is decisive of the issue. Following that ruling, no other bars to Mr Waszkiewicz's extradition were advanced. 3. Ms Hannah Hinton for Mr Waszkiewicz does not feel able today to make any representations on his behalf. She has told me that Mr Waszkiewicz wishes to make representations himself and has asked for this hearing to be adjourned to enable him to do that. However, he is in custody and he refused to get onto the prison transport today. If he had any representations to make, he could and should have made them to me today. In the circumstances, I refuse Ms Hinton's application for the hearing of this appeal to be adjourned, and since no grounds have been advanced for saying that Mr Waszkiewicz should not be extradited to Poland, this appeal must be dismissed.