Srama v District Court of Bydgoszsz

Where a requesting authority withdraws an extradition request in relation to one of several offences before extradition, the appropriate judge must discharge the requested person in relation to that offence under Extradition Act 2003, section 41(3). If the judge proceeds on the basis of the wrong offence and fails to determine the remaining offence, the High Court cannot treat the order as relating to that remaining offence. The order must be quashed to the extent it concerns the withdrawn offence, and the extradition proceedings remain extant for determination by the appropriate judge.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by Senior District Judge Workman on 17 August 2006 ordering his extradition to Poland. The European Arrest Warrant alleged two offences concerning the production and marketing of amphetamine.

Before the extradition hearing, the requesting authority made clear that it no longer sought extradition for the second offence. The Senior District Judge nevertheless proceeded on the basis that the second offence was being pursued and did not determine the claimant’s arguments concerning the first offence. The central issues were the effect of the withdrawal and whether the High Court could treat the order as having been made in respect of the first offence.

1. The appeal was allowed, or more precisely the court declared the position resulting from the Senior District Judge’s error. The requesting authority had withdrawn its request in relation to the second alleged offence. Under section 41(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the Senior District Judge was required to order the claimant’s discharge in relation to that offence.

2. The Senior District Judge had proceeded on the erroneous understanding that the second offence was the offence being pursued. His reasoning addressed that offence and did not determine the arguments relating to the first offence. The High Court therefore could not treat the order as an order for extradition on the first offence. The issues relating to the first offence were not identical to those relating to the second.

3. Section 27(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, as amended by the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003, required discharge and quashing in relation to the relevant offence only where the statutory appeal conditions were satisfied. The order was accordingly quashed in relation to the second offence.

4. There was no order in force for the claimant’s extradition to Poland. The extradition proceedings remained extant, and the Senior District Judge remained seized of them. The proceedings could be restored and a further application could be made in relation to the first alleged offence, which had not yet been adjudicated.

5. The court made no determination on the claimant’s further grounds, including the arguments concerning the framework offence, the particulars of the warrant and article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant remained on bail on the existing conditions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on 6 February 2007, declared that the Senior District Judge had proceeded on the wrong offence, quashed the extradition order in relation to the second offence, and directed that the extant proceedings continue before the appropriate judge.
• Senior District Judge: on 17 August 2006, ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland.