Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland

For a European arrest warrant, where the requesting court imposes one aggregate sentence for several offences, section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003 does not require apportionment between the offences. An aggregate custodial penalty of at least four months can satisfy section 65(3)(c), even if no individual offence carries a sentence of that length. A new challenge to deliberate absence from trial will ordinarily require permission on appeal, particularly where it was not raised below and the evidence supports the district judge’s finding.

Konrad Pilecki appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland under two European arrest warrants. The warrants concerned sentences imposed after trials conducted in his absence. The appeal challenged compliance with section 2(6)(e), satisfaction of section 65(3)(c), and the finding under section 20(3) that he had deliberately absented himself from trial. The latter ground had not been raised before the district judge or in the original notice of appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Both warrants complied with section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003. The Polish courts had imposed aggregate punishments of one year and two months and one year respectively. Those were the sentences imposed for the offences covered by the warrants, so separate sentences did not require identification or apportionment.

2. The court applied Trepac v Presiding Judge of the County Court in Trencin, Slovak Republic [2006] EWHC 3346 (Admin). The validity of a warrant did not depend on whether the offences were committed on the same occasion or in the same course of conduct.

3. Section 65(3)(c) was satisfied because each warrant concerned one aggregate custodial penalty of at least four months.

4. Permission to amend the notice of appeal was refused. The challenge under section 20(3) had not been raised below, and the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from trial.

5. Leveson LJ agreed, emphasising that appellate courts should be slow to permit new factual arguments where the issue was not raised below.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the district judge’s extradition order dismissed; permission to amend the notice of appeal refused.