Palinski v Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland

In a conviction case under Part I of the Extradition Act 2003, where several offences have resulted in an aggregated sentence, the executing court need not determine the sentence attributable to each individual offence. The relevant question is whether the sentence imposed for the conduct taken as a whole is at least four months, provided the other requirements for an extradition offence are met. The executing state should not inquire into how the requesting state calculated the sentence. That approach gives effect to the mutual-recognition principle underlying the European arrest warrant scheme.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve sentences imposed after convictions in five sets of proceedings. The appeal concerned only the first warrant and two grounds: whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars of sentence under section 2(6)(e), and whether the relevant offences were extradition offences under section 65(3)(c).

The central issue was whether, where a single aggregate sentence had been imposed for multiple offences, the four-month threshold had to be satisfied separately for each offence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The facts were indistinguishable from Pilecki v The Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland [2008] UKHL 7, which had upheld the decision of this court in Pilecki v The Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland [2007] EWHC 2080.

2. For a conviction case involving multiple offences, section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003, as modified by the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003, does not require the warrant to identify the sentence attributable to each individual offence. Particulars of the sentence imposed for the offences are sufficient.

3. Under section 65(3)(c), the four-month gravity threshold is assessed by reference to the sentence imposed for the conduct taken as a whole. The court need not ask whether the sentence passed for each separate offence independently satisfies the threshold, provided the other conditions in section 65(3) are satisfied.

4. The Framework Decision’s principle of mutual recognition means that the executing state should not investigate how the sentence was calculated or require the requesting state to alter its sentencing practices. The length of the sentence to be served is decisive.

5. Poland was a category 1 territory, the conduct occurred there, and the dual-criminality requirement was accepted. The sentence particulars in the warrant therefore satisfied sections 2(6)(e) and 65(3)(c), and the extradition order under the first warrant stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the district judge’s extradition order.
• District Judge: ordered extradition to Poland on 28 January 2008 under two European arrest warrants; this appeal concerned only the first warrant.