The District Court of Slupsk v Piotrowski

On a statutory extradition appeal, section 29(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 concerns when the court may allow an appeal. It does not itself determine whether new evidence may be admitted. Material evidence may be admitted where it is relevant to the core merits, subject to the opposing party receiving a fair opportunity to consider it and take instructions. An adjournment may therefore be necessary before the substantive appeal is heard.

Mr Piotrowski had been ordered by a district judge to be extradited to Poland to face charges of murder and attempted murder. He was discharged on four further charges because delay made extradition unjust or oppressive. Mr Piotrowski appealed in relation to the first two charges, and the Polish authority cross-appealed in relation to the other four.

At the hearing, the Polish authority sought permission to adduce documents obtained after the extradition hearing. The material was said to bear on the passage of time, the availability of evidence, and the merits of both appeals. The central issue was whether the material should be admitted and what procedural directions were required.

1. The court admitted the additional evidence and adjourned the substantive appeal and cross-appeal. The hearing was fixed for 12 June 2007, with an expectation that a second day might be required.

2. Section 29(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 establishes a condition for allowing an appeal. It does not establish a condition governing the admission of evidence. Even if the material was admitted, the respondent could still argue that it had been available at the extradition hearing for the purposes of section 29(4)(a).

3. The material was potentially relevant to the core passage-of-time issue in both appeals. The court considered that it could not fairly determine the appeals without considering it, despite serious criticism of the way in which the material had been prepared and produced.

4. Admission required the respondent to have a fair opportunity to examine the documents, obtain translations where necessary, and take instructions. The court also invited the Polish authority to inquire whether reasoned decisions existed concerning the earlier acquittal and its reversal. Costs were reserved to the substantive hearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the district judge ordered extradition on two charges on 14 November 2006 and discharged the respondent on four other charges. Mr Piotrowski appealed and the Polish authority cross-appealed. The present court admitted further evidence and adjourned the substantive hearing.