Banasinski v District Court of Sanok (A Polish Judicial Authority)

For a Part 1 European Arrest Warrant, Extradition Act 2003, section 2 requires the matters specified by the Act, including the sentence imposed where the person has been convicted. It does not require details of the sentence remaining or time spent on remand. An error in additional information does not invalidate the warrant or provide a ground of appeal. A human-rights challenge based on Article 3 requires substantial grounds for believing that extradition would create a real risk of ill-treatment. A vague allegation raised for the first time on appeal, unsupported by evidence and without a cogent explanation for its lateness, is insufficient.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland on nine European Arrest Warrants. He argued that one warrant inaccurately stated the sentence remaining to be served because it omitted time allegedly spent on remand. He also alleged that return would expose him to degrading treatment in prison because of his sexuality. The claimant had been represented before the District Judge but did not attend or obtain representation at the appeal hearing. The central issues were whether the alleged inaccuracy affected the warrant’s validity and whether the late Article 3 claim could establish a bar to extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant had proper notice of the hearing, had not sought an adjournment, and the court was entitled to proceed in his absence.
2. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 specifies the statements and information required in a Part 1 warrant. The relevant requirements included the statement that the warrant was issued for the purpose of serving a sentence and particulars of the sentence imposed.
3. Section 2 did not require details of the length of sentence remaining or any period spent on remand. The warrant contained the statutory statement and particulars of the three-year sentence. Its additional statement about the sentence remaining did not affect validity, even if inaccurate.
4. The court also noted that Article 8(1) of the European Framework Decision required the penalty imposed, or the prescribed scale of penalties, rather than the period remaining to be served. The domestic legislation was consistent with that requirement.
5. An Article 3 challenge required the claimant to show substantial grounds for believing that extradition created a real risk of ill-treatment. The allegation of abuse in Polish custody was raised for the first time on appeal, was extremely vague, and lacked supporting evidence or cogent reasons for its late presentation. The court was also entitled to rely on Poland’s obligations as a Convention signatory.
6. Neither ground disclosed a sustainable basis for challenging the extradition order.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Nicholas Evans ordered extradition on the remaining European Arrest Warrants on 6 May 2008.