Tazbir v Regional Court In Gdansk, Poland

An European Arrest Warrant complies with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 where, read as a whole and in its natural meaning, it gives sufficient particulars of the alleged conduct, time, place and applicable law. The warrant need not identify the ingredients of an equivalent English offence where the alleged offence falls within the framework-list category of fraud and dual criminality is consequently immaterial. A poorly expressed or translated warrant may nevertheless be valid. A broad omnibus description is insufficient, but the required degree of detail depends on the nature of the alleged offence and the need to balance adequate information against the simplicity of extradition procedures.

The claimant appealed against an extradition order made by District Judge Wickham at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He had been arrested under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Regional Court in Gdansk. The warrant alleged one offence against property under Article 286.1 of the Polish Penal Code, involving the collection of goods after an assurance of financial liquidity and loss to a named company.

The central issue was whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, particularly particulars of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant was valid under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. A detailed assessment of costs was ordered.
2. Section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of four matters: the conduct alleged to constitute the offence; the time; the place; and the provision of the law under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. A broad omnibus description of criminal conduct is insufficient. The approach in Von der Pahlen v Austria [2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin) was distinguished because the present warrant gave particulars rather than merely stating a general offence.
3. The adequacy of the description must be assessed by reading the warrant as a whole, giving its words their natural and ordinary meaning and making appropriate allowance for translation. The description must give the person sought an idea of the nature and extent of the allegations, while respecting the objective of simplifying extradition procedures, as explained in Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin).
4. The warrant identified the relevant period, location, victim company, goods, invoices, total value, assurance of financial liquidity and collection of the goods. It also identified the offence as fraud within the framework-list category. Taken together, those particulars sufficiently explained the circumstances of the alleged offence. It was unnecessary to require the warrant to set out the ingredients of an equivalent English offence.
5. The court adopted the substance of the judicial authority’s submissions and agreed with the District Judge that the warrant was inadequately presented but nonetheless clear and valid.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wickham ordered extradition on 20 January 2009 after ruling that the European Arrest Warrant complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.