MARIUSZ PIATCZAK AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2015] HCJAC 51
HCA/2015-001370-XM
Lord Menzies
Lord Brodie
Lady Clark of Calton
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD MENZIES
in
APPEAL AGAINST EXTRADITION
by
MARIUSZ PIATCZAK
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
Appellant: Party
Respondent: Dickson Sol Adv for Lord Advocate on behalf of the Polish Authorities
5 June 2015
[1] The appellant Mariusz Piatczak has lodged a note of appeal under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of Sheriff Mciver at Edinburgh Sheriff Court dated 2 April 2015, following a full extradition hearing at which the appellant was legally represented, ordering in terms of section 21(3) of that Act that the appellant be extradited to the Republic of Poland.
[2] There were only two grounds of appeal stated in the note of argument. Each complained of the sheriff’s exercise of his discretion in procedural matters and each was in relation to a decision to refuse to adjourn the hearing. The first adjournment was sought in order to find out whether the appellant’s partner was suffering from cancer. The second was sought in order to allow the appellant’s solicitor to obtain further information as to the meaning of “increased isolation” as an element of greater security provided to the appellant whilst in custody in Poland.
[3] We do not consider that either of these matters properly raises a question of fact or of law for the purpose of section 26(3) of the 2003 Act. They each relate to the sheriff’s exercise of his undoubted discretion in procedural matters and do not permit of an appeal to this court in terms of the Act.
[3] In any event we were advised by the appellant at the hearing of his appeal today that following investigations it has been found that his partner is not in fact suffering from cancer. With regard to the issue of increased isolation in a Polish prison the sheriff gave clear reasoning on this issue at page 3 of his report. Nothing placed before us suggests that he has erred in fact or in law in his treatment of this issue.
[4] For these reasons we refuse this appeal and adhere to the sheriff’s interlocutor of 2 April 2015.