Trepac v County Court In Trencin Slovak Republic

In European arrest warrant proceedings, a warrant relating to several offences is not invalid merely because it states one aggregate sentence where the requesting state imposed a single sentence for the offences. The court must respect the sentencing system of the requesting state and should not require an artificial apportionment of the sentence.

For the purpose of section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, an aggregate sentence imposed for conduct comprising several offences may satisfy the minimum sentence requirement for each offence where the sentence applies to the offences together. The warrant was therefore valid and the firearms offence was an extradition offence.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge Evans at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his extradition to the Slovak Republic.

A European arrest warrant sought his surrender to serve a 13-year sentence imposed following convictions for attempted murder and carrying a concealed weapon. The claimant argued that the warrant was invalid because it did not identify a separate sentence for each offence, and that the firearms offence did not satisfy the four-month threshold in section 65(3)(c). He also relied consequentially on section 17. The central issue was whether the Slovak court’s single aggregate sentence could support extradition for both offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant complied with section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003. Section 2(6)(e) required particulars of the sentence imposed, but did not require separate particulars for each offence in a multiple-offence case where the foreign court had imposed one sentence.
2. The form of warrant in the Framework Decision contemplated warrants relating to more than one offence while requiring only the length of the custodial sentence imposed and the remaining sentence. Applying the approach in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas [2005] UKHL 67, the court should not construe the statutory requirements so technically as to obstruct the Framework Decision’s purpose.
3. The evidence showed that the Slovak court had imposed one accumulative sentence of 13 years for both offences. It was therefore unjustified to require the English court to divide that sentence into constituent parts or to demand that the Slovak court amend its sentencing order.
4. Under section 65(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the conduct constituted an extradition offence because it occurred in the category 1 territory, would constitute an offence under United Kingdom law, and a sentence of at least four months had been imposed in respect of the conduct. The 13-year sentence applied to the firearms offence as well as the attempted murder offence.
5. The section 17 speciality argument depended on the firearms offence not being an extradition offence and therefore failed. The court noted that, where separate sentences are in fact imposed, the necessary information might be supplied in supplementary documentation, but that issue did not arise for decision.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed. The order for extradition made by District Judge Evans at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court was upheld.