Pietrzak v Regional Court In Wloclawek, Poland

For a European arrest warrant issued to enforce a sentence, the mandatory information concerns the sentence imposed, not necessarily the precise period remaining to be served. The Annex form referred to by Article 8 of the Council Framework Decision is the vehicle for supplying mandatory information, but information in the form that goes beyond Article 8.1 is not, by itself, essential to validity. An inaccurate statement about the remaining term does not invalidate the warrant where the correct term is otherwise established and no real risk of unlawful imprisonment or unfairness arises.

The claimant 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. One warrant concerned an alleged escape from custody, which was not challenged. The other sought his return to serve the balance of a sentence imposed in Poland.

The warrant stated that two years and four months remained, although the parties accepted that the correct period was seven months. The central issue was whether that inaccuracy made the warrant invalid or created a real risk of unlawful imprisonment contrary to Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention.

1. Appeal dismissed. The error in stating the remaining sentence did not invalidate the warrant.
2. Section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 required particulars of the sentence imposed. That requirement had been met. It did not expressly require an accurate statement of the sentence remaining to be served.
3. The Annex to the Council Framework Decision, referred to in Article 8, provided the form through which the mandatory information in Article 8.1 was supplied. The contents and layout of the form were not themselves wholly mandatory. Information exceeding Article 8.1 could assist the executing state, but was not necessarily part of the material required for validity.
4. The length of the sentence imposed determined whether the offence fell within the statutory definition of an extradition offence. As explained in Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland [2008] UKHL 7, the executing state needed to know whether the sentence reached the applicable threshold.
5. The remaining term was relevant to whether the claimant was unlawfully at large under section 65, but he was plainly unlawfully at large and the correct seven-month period had been accepted by the Polish authorities and understood by both courts.
6. There was no real risk that the clerical error would cause the claimant to serve more than the sentence justified. The court therefore did not decide what consequences might follow from a demonstrably wrong statement where the requesting state refused to accept the error. No breach of Articles 5 or 8 arose on the facts.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 8 April 2003, District Judge Purdy ordered extradition to Poland under two European arrest warrants.