Michalak v The Circuit Court, Second Criminal Division In Olsztyn, Poland

An error in a European arrest warrant does not necessarily invalidate it. The court must distinguish between the omission of essential information and the inclusion of additional, inaccurate information. An inaccurate detail will not invalidate a conviction warrant where it is relatively minor, does not materially mislead the requested person, and does not affect the sentence to be served. The court may consider reliable evidence outside the warrant when assessing the effect of the error. These principles must be applied consistently with the statutory requirements governing deprivation of liberty and the Framework Decision’s principle of mutual recognition.

The appellant challenged an order made by the District Judge at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 28 April 2010 for his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned the enforcement of a 12-year custodial sentence. It contained inaccuracies concerning offences, including an offence from which the appellant had been acquitted on appeal, attempted burglaries, and the use of firearms.

The issuing court subsequently confirmed that the appellant’s sentence remained 12 years and that the material changes made on appeal did not affect the substance of his criminal liability, apart from the acquitted offence. The central issue was whether those inaccuracies meant that the warrant failed to comply with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was right to order extradition.
2. Section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a conviction warrant to contain particulars of the conviction. The warrant contained particulars of the relevant convictions. Its inclusion of an offence of which the appellant had been acquitted did not necessarily invalidate the warrant.
3. It is not every error in a European arrest warrant that invalidates it. The court must assess the nature and practical significance of the error. The errors here were relatively minor. They did not materially mislead the appellant, and they did not alter the fact that he would serve the unexpired part of a 12-year sentence.
4. The distinction between omission and inclusion was material. A warrant lacking essential information is void and cannot be rescued by information later supplied by the issuing authority, as explained in Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6. The present case concerned additional inaccurate information rather than an omission of essential information. The court could therefore consider the Court of Appeal’s decision and the later clarification from the issuing authority. Section 202 of the Act contemplated the receipt of such evidence.
5. Strict compliance with statutory requirements was important because extradition deprives an individual of liberty. That consideration had to be balanced with the Framework Decision’s purpose and the principle of mutual recognition. Treating this warrant as void ab initio would be inconsistent with that principle.
6. The reasoning in Lacorre v High Instance Court of Paris [2008] EWHC 2871 (Admin) showed that defects need not necessarily invalidate a warrant as a whole, although the present case concerned a conviction warrant and no severance issue arose.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order of 28 April 2010 was dismissed.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.