Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland

The House of Lords held that in a conviction case under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 the executing judicial authority need only be satisfied that the sentence imposed for the conduct taken as a whole meets the four month threshold in section 65(3)(c), rather than requiring that each individual sentence for each offence meets that threshold. The court construed section 2(6)(e) (the particulars required in a Part 1 warrant) and section 65(3)(c) in conformity with the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, finding that the Framework Decision and its Annex focus on the length of the sentence to be executed, not on how that sentence was arrived at for each constituent offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed because the warrants, read with the further information provided, satisfied the statutory requirements for Part 1 warrants and the offences constituted extradition offences under section 65(3).

This was an appeal against the Divisional Court's dismissal of the appellant's challenge to two European arrest warrants issued by the Circuit Court of Legnica for his extradition to Poland to serve aggregated custodial sentences. The warrants stated aggregate custodial terms exceeding four months but further information disclosed that the domestic sentencing court had determined individual sentences for each offence and then aggregated them with a discount, such that some individual sentences were under four months.

Nature of the application: The appellant sought to challenge the validity of the Part 1 warrants and contended that, under the Extradition Act 2003, particulars of the sentence for each individual offence had to be provided and that section 65(3)(c) required each individual sentence to be at least four months for the offence to be an extradition offence.

Procedural history: District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 9 July 2007. The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court which dismissed the appeal ([2007] EWHC 2080 (Admin)) and certified a point of general public importance. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords followed.

Issues framed:

• Whether section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003 required particulars of the sentence attributable to each individual offence in multiple-offence conviction cases.
• Whether section 65(3)(c) required that each individual sentence imposed for each offence be for four months or more for that offence to be an extradition offence, or whether an aggregated sentence of at least four months was sufficient.

Reasoning and conclusion: The Lords examined the text and purpose of the Framework Decision and its Annex (which the 2003 Act implements) and concluded that the Framework Decision requires information about the length of the sentence to be executed, not an apportionment of that sentence among constituent offences. Applying the principle of mutual recognition and the duty to interpret domestic law in conformity with framework decisions, they read section 2(6)(e) and section 65(3)(c) as referring to the sentence imposed for the conduct as a whole. The modified wording of section 10(2) (introduced by the Multiple Offences Order 2003) did not require a different result in conviction cases. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding the warrants were valid Part 1 warrants and the conduct taken as a whole satisfied section 65(3)(c).

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that in conviction cases under the Extradition Act 2003 the executing judge need only consider whether the sentence imposed for the conduct taken as a whole meets the four month threshold in section 65(3)(c); particulars required by section 2(6)(e) may properly be given in respect of the aggregate sentence and it is not for the executing state to inquire into how that aggregate was arrived at.

District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 9 July 2007; appeal to the Divisional Court (Leveson LJ and Stanley Burnton J) dismissed the appeal ([2007] EWHC 2080 (Admin)) and certified a point of general public importance; appeal to the House of Lords determined by judgment [2008] UKHL 7 (appeal dismissed).