Kowalski, R (on the application of) v District Court In Krakow, Poland

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal against a decision of the Westminster Magistrates' Court in which District Judge Wickham decided that the appellant should be removed to Poland in accordance with an EAW. He was convicted in Poland of drug offences. There were in fact two separate matters. In August 2004 he was sentenced to a total of one year and six months' imprisonment and in July 2006 to six months' imprisonment. I gather that the system in Poland was that the appellant should have attended in order to start his prison sentence on a particular date which the court would have specified. He decided that he would not attend. Apparently he had got himself into financial difficulties and felt that the way ahead was to come to this country. He accepts that he knew perfectly well that he was not permitted to leave Poland and it is in those circumstances that his return is requested.

2. There are no arguments against the return based upon the warrant itself. What the claimant submits is that it would be an unjustifiable breach of his Article 8 rights to return him. There is no question but that a breach of one of the human rights articles can justify a decision not to return, but in relation to Article 8 it takes, as the law makes clear, a very compelling case to justify non-return. Article 8(2) makes it clear that an interference with respect to private and family life can be overridden for the prevention of disorder or crime and it is plain that it is important that compliance with our international obligations is maintained.

3. The concern here is that the appellant's fiancée, herself Polish, is suffering from depression and will be gravely affected if he is returned to Poland. In addition, he says that he and she have run up considerable debts in this country and he needs to be able to try to repay those debts which again affect his fiancée. He recognises that subject obviously to her health there is no reason in principle why she should not go back to Poland with him, albeit I recognise that if he is in prison there it may be that she will have to be on her own.

4. Unfortunately those who commit offences which are serious enough to result in imprisonment will almost inevitably bring problems, I put it no higher, upon their family and friends. That is inevitable. In these circumstances I am afraid that the matters relied on are clearly insufficient to justify a decision that return should not take place. It follows that I must dismiss this appeal.

5. The appellant has asked whether it would be possible for his sentence to be served in this country. The answer to that is, so far as I am aware, "no" because this is a European Arrest Warrant case and the return is now required. On the other hand, the possibility to see if there is any jurisdiction can be checked and no doubt will be. Subject to that, this appeal is dismissed. I make the point that any such check will have to be done very quickly because return must be made within a short period of time. The appellant has been on bail Mr Grandison, is that right, and the bail presumably was until today?

6. MR GRANDISON: My Lord, I would ask that it continue. He has certainly attended on all occasions and he will be informed of the arrangements once arranged.

7. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am not sure precisely what terms the bail were, but I shall extend bail on the same terms and you will be notified when and where you have to attend. If you do not then you will be committing an offence here and find yourself in real trouble.