Pilecki (Appellant) v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland (Respondents) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)

In a conviction case under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the four-month threshold is met if the custodial sentence imposed for the conduct as a whole is at least four months. It is unnecessary to determine whether each individual offence within an aggregated sentence attracted a sentence of at least four months.

A European arrest warrant need give particulars of the aggregated sentence to be served. It need not apportion that sentence among the individual offences. This construction gives effect to the Framework Decision’s principle of mutual recognition and respects the issuing state’s sentencing practice.

Polish judicial authorities issued two European arrest warrants for the appellant to serve custodial sentences imposed after convictions for several offences. In each case the Polish court had imposed individual sentences and then a shorter aggregated sentence. The aggregated sentence exceeded four months, although some individual sentences did not.

A District Judge ordered extradition. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal: [2007] EWHC 2080 (Admin). The House of Lords considered whether section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 required a qualifying sentence for each offence separately, or whether an aggregated sentence for the offences specified in the warrant sufficed.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Hope gave the substantive reasoning. Lord Bingham, Lord Scott, Lord Brown and Lord Neuberger each expressly agreed with his reasoning and conclusion.

2. Per Lord Hope, the Framework Decision draws a material distinction between accusation and conviction cases. In an accusation case, the gravity condition concerns the maximum penalty for each act to be prosecuted. In a conviction case, it concerns the execution of a sentence of at least four months. The executing state need only determine the length of the sentence which the requested person must serve.

3. Accordingly, where several offences have resulted in an aggregated sentence, section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 is satisfied if the sentence imposed for the conduct as a whole is at least four months, provided the other statutory conditions are met. The judge need not identify the sentence attributable to each offence. The contrary construction would require an impermissible inquiry into the issuing state’s sentencing process and would conflict with mutual recognition.

4. Section 2(6)(e) similarly required particulars of the sentence imposed in respect of the offences, not an apportionment between them. The warrants stated qualifying aggregated sentences and were therefore valid Part 1 warrants. The House approved Trepac v Presiding Judge of the County Court in Trencin, Slovak Republic, [2006] EWHC 3346 (Admin).

5. Lord Hope added, obiter, that where a point of general public importance has been certified and an application for leave to appeal remains possible or pending, the authorities should check with the Judicial Office before treating the High Court’s decision as final and removing the requested person.

• House of Lords: dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the validity of the two Part 1 warrants.
• Divisional Court (High Court): dismissed the appeal from the extradition orders, holding that the statutory requirements were satisfied: [2007] EWHC 2080 (Admin).
• District Judge: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under each European arrest warrant.