[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Basiak v Regional Court In Kielce Poland [2013] EWHC 530 (Admin) (07 February 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/530.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 530 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		7 February 2013

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 19 December 2012, whereby the district judge directed the appellant's removal to Poland to face charges involving the supply of amphetamines, offences allegedly committed in 2003, and also to serve sentences imposed for offences of robbery and assault which had been committed in 1999.
2. The appellant has been in this country for some eight years now, and he has set up a life here. He has bought a house, having worked to obtain money. He has a wife and a two-year-old child, and another child is due within the next three weeks or so. He has recognised that he has no basis for challenging the decision that he should be removed, and indeed counsel has indicated that he cannot raise any arguments in support of the appeal. In those circumstances, the appeal must be dismissed.
3. What is before me in those circumstances is an application for bail pending the removal. I gather that he has decided, or his family has decided, that his wife and child will go to Poland. It is possible, apparently, that the sentences may be suspended (such information has been obtained from his lawyer) but of course he has to face the charges and, if convicted of the drug offences, it seems likely that a prison sentence will result. However, they are old, and it is, I suppose, always possible that any sentence could be suspended.
4. Be that as it may, the appellant, when arrested, was living under a false name, and there is no question that he has taken steps to avoid being discovered in this country. On the face of it, it seems highly likely that this is indeed a case where he has been a fugitive from justice, certainly so far as the conviction matters are concerned. Indeed, it is of note that he did not raise any bars to extradition before the district judge. The application for bail is resisted.
5. What is on offer are very stringent conditions, which effectively would amount to house arrest. The reason why he wants bail is to enable him to sort out the sale of, or the dealing with, his house and putting his affairs in order in so far as he is able to do so before the removal to Poland. That removal will be likely to take place, or should take place, within a relatively short time, but in practical terms, having regard to the time limits that apply, it is not likely to be within less than approximately three weeks. It could be longer than that because arrangements have to be made. The system for removal to Poland, there being a rather large number of extradition cases from Poland, are such that effectively it involves 18 persons twice a month, and it depends obviously whether flights can take place and how long a queue there is to get on those flights.
6. There is offered a security of £20,000, £5,000 of which comes from his mother and the balance from his funds, because he was able to sell some motorcars and apparently he has a bank account which contains some £5,000. A condition of residence at the address in question is offered and a curfew, which effectively will be monitored by tagging, between 9 pm and 6 am, together with a daily reporting to Milton Keynes Police Station and passport and ID card to be surrendered.
7. I recognise that there are strong concerns that, having regard to his history and his giving of a false identity, he may be a flight risk. However, the reality is that he has this property, he has financial ties, he now has a wife and a child who is about to be born and another small child. It seems to me in those circumstances that, having recognised that he has to go back to Poland and having made arrangements which involve his wife and children accompanying him, the situation now is such that those fears can to some extent be allayed.
8. However, I am entirely satisfied that the stringent conditions are needed and I am prepared to grant bail on those conditions, namely: the deposit of £20,000 with the court; the condition of residence at the address, 2 Edstone Place, Emerson Valley, MK4 2LU; he is subject to a curfew (that is to say, he must not leave the premises between 9 pm and 6 am), and there will be a tag so that he is electronically monitored; he must report daily to Milton Keynes Central Police Station between the hours of 10 am and 12 pm; and he must surrender his passport and identity card. On those conditions being met, bail will be granted. Bail will be pending notification that he is to be removed to Poland. In fact, he must report to wherever he has to report, whether on the day or even the day before the flight. It depends on the arrangements that are made for the removal.
9. MR KEITH: My Lord, would it assist if I draw up an order and submit it to your clerk?
10. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes. Thank you.