Bartnicki v Circuit Court In Olsztyn Poland

In extradition proceedings under a European arrest warrant, the court may consider the warrant together with a supplementary document which fills a material lacuna in the warrant, where the parties have a proper opportunity to address it. Fresh evidence may also be admitted where an adjournment was wrongly refused below. The decisive question remains whether the evidence establishes the legal basis for extradition. Here, the supplementary evidence established that the appellant had breached the obligations attached to his suspended sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Polish judicial authority sought the appellant’s extradition under a European arrest warrant so that he could serve a one-year sentence imposed after convictions for two offences. The sentence had initially been suspended for three years and was later activated when the Polish court found a breach of the suspended sentence order.

Before the magistrates’ court, the appellant sought an adjournment because Polish lawyers were seeking withdrawal of the warrant and contended that he had not been prohibited from leaving Poland. The extradition order was made. On appeal, the central issue was whether the court could consider further evidence concerning the terms and breach of the suspended sentence.

1. Fresh evidence and supplementary material. The court admitted evidence from the appellant and his Polish lawyer because the district judge had refused the requested adjournment. The respondent was likewise permitted to rely on a document from the Deputy Chairman of the Second Criminal Division of the Circuit Court in Olsztyn.
2. Material capable of filling a lacuna. Although the European arrest warrant did not state that the appellant was sought because of a breach of the suspended sentence order, the court was entitled to consider the warrant together with the supplementary document. The appellant accepted that this was permissible on the facts.
3. Breach established. The supplementary document explained that the appellant had been instructed about his obligations under Article 169 paragraph 3 of the Polish Criminal Code, including the obligation not to change his address without informing his probation officer. It also recorded that he had changed his place of residence without providing a new address and that attempts to contact him had failed. The evidence was sufficient to establish that he had left Poland in breach of the suspended sentence order.
4. Disposition. Once that conclusion was reached, the appellant accepted that the appeal could not succeed. The appeal was dismissed. The court did not determine the appellant’s separate argument concerning jurisdiction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Purdy at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Ordered extradition after refusing an adjournment sought pending an application in Poland to withdraw the European arrest warrant.