UK case law
Kowalski, R (on the application of) v Lublin Provincial Court, Poland
[2012] EWHC ADMIN 3046 · 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
1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Unfortunately, in this appeal by Mr Kowalski, pursuant to Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 , counsel instructed on his behalf has not been able - for reasons which I need not go into - to notify him of the advice given on the merits of his appeal. I have read the papers and it is quite plain that there is no merit whatever in the appeal. However the point is made that the solicitors would have had to have withdrawn from representing him in the circumstances if he was not to withdraw the appeal. Thus he would have had the opportunity - which he has not had it is said - to raise further points.
2. In fact, the grounds of appeal that he relied on are themselves short. Essentially he complains that there was no adjournment given to enable material to be produced about prison conditions in Poland. That is an old chestnut which has been disposed of in a previous case, and there is no merit at all in the Article 3 argument which has been raised in a number of cases.
3. In addition, there is a claim that Section 25 of the Act applies. In reality, what this appellant is facing is the serving of an eight-year sentence for various offences committed in Poland. He says that because he is a Roma gypsy he is at greater risk than others in the prison system. He says, too, that he has medical problems that should be gone into and which should make his extradition impossible. In reality, all those matters were gone into by the district judge. He rejected them. He properly rejected them. There is no conceivable possibility that this court would allow any appeal.
4. In those circumstances, I refuse the application made. It would be a complete waste of public money to allow this appellant to continue to try to delay his return to Poland. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
5. MR HEARN: I ask for the order - - - - -
6. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You want the usual order - legal aid.
7. MR HEARN: Costs such as they are, yes.
8. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Of course.