Glica v Government of Poland

Under the Extradition Act 2003, a Part I warrant is not invalid merely because it does not expressly state whether it seeks prosecution or execution of a sentence, where its contents clearly establish that it concerns execution of a custodial sentence. Documentary requirements are generally satisfied by the statutory evidential mechanism, subject to evidence undermining translation accuracy. A translation error does not prevent extradition where it is immaterial to the statutory requirements, including whether the offences are extradition offences.

The claimant appealed under the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order extraditing him to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant referred to two convictions and stated the custodial sentences imposed and remaining to be served. The claimant argued that the warrant did not sufficiently identify its legal basis and that the English translation was inaccurate because it omitted words recording that seven months of one sentence were deemed served.

The central issues were whether the warrant was invalid for uncertainty and whether the translation defect prevented reliance on the warrant.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant clearly identified two convictions and custodial sentences, and therefore sufficiently established that it was issued for execution of custodial sentences. There was no ambiguity capable of invalidating it under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. The documents were self-proving under section 202, subject to evidence capable of undermining the accuracy of a translation. The legal effect of an inaccuracy depended on its nature and significance.

3. The omitted words indicated that seven months of the first sentence were deemed to have been served. That omission did not affect whether the offences were extradition offences, and it was not argued that the sentence had been fully served. The error was therefore immaterial, and the district judge was entitled to disregard it.

4. Following refusal of the appeal, the statutory extradition period could be extended by agreement under section 36(3)(b), with the relevant period running from the agreed later date.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2008] EWHC 1111 (Admin) dismissed the statutory appeal against the district judge’s extradition order.