Krajewski v Circuit Court of Torun, Poland & Anor

Krajewski v Circuit Court of Torun, Poland & Anor

The appellant failed to prove timely service of the notice of appeal against the uncontested order, rendering the appeal out of time and incapable of proceeding. The offences in the EAWs were extradition offences under the Act. There was no bar to extradition by double jeopardy, passage of time, or human rights incompatibility. Fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility threshold. Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision was not implemented in UK law and did not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Kamil Krajewski; First Respondent: Circuit Court of Torun, Poland; Second Respondent: Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Extradition Orders
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Double Jeopardy, Passage of Time, In Absentia Conviction, Human Rights (articles 3, 6, 8 Echr), Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Abuse of Process
Extradition Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law European Arrest Warrant Double Jeopardy Passage of Time In Absentia Conviction Human Rights (articles 3, 6, 8 Echr) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamil Krajewski

Appellant

Circuit Court of Torun, Poland

First Respondent

Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Extradition Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal against the uncontested extradition order was validly served within time
  2. 2 Whether the offences in the EAWs were extradition offences under the Extradition Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether extradition was barred by double jeopardy, passage of time, or incompatibility with human rights

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove timely service of the notice of appeal against the uncontested order, rendering the appeal out of time and incapable of proceeding. The offences in the EAWs were extradition offences under the Act. There was no bar to extradition by double jeopardy, passage of time, or human rights incompatibility. Fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility threshold. Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision was not implemented in UK law and did not apply.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against the uncontested order of 29 June 2010 dismissed as out of time and cannot proceed.
  • Appeal against the contested order of 11 November 2010 dismissed on the merits.