Puzo v District Court In Kladno, Czech Republic

For a conviction warrant under Extradition Act 2003, the warrant must accurately reflect the substance of the requested person’s legal position, not merely satisfy formal requirements. A person whose original non-custodial sentence has been replaced by imprisonment is treated as sentenced for the purposes of Part 1, even where the custodial order remains appealable or has not yet been served. If the sentencing process is instead regarded as incomplete, the person falls within the statutory category of someone not yet sentenced. In either event, the conduct may constitute an extradition offence if the applicable statutory conditions are met.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Evans on 25 June 2010 ordering his extradition to the Czech Republic to serve a sentence of 200 days’ imprisonment. He had obtained a loan by giving false information, received a community sentence, failed to perform the required public work, and was later sentenced to imprisonment in his absence.

Before the Administrative Court, the appellant argued that the European Arrest Warrant was invalid because he was not a convicted person, or alternatively that the offence was not an extradition offence because the custodial sentence was not final. The central issues were whether the warrant was a valid conviction warrant and whether the conduct fell within sections 64 or 65 of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant plainly sought extradition for the purpose of serving a sentence already imposed, rather than for prosecution. It was therefore a conviction warrant.
2. Under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, compliance is partly a matter of form and content, but the warrant must also correctly reflect the substance of the position. The principle illustrated by Caldarelli v Court of Naples [2008] UKHL 51 was applicable. The Czech material showed that the appellant had been served with the criminal order, had not sought a standard trial, and had accepted the public-work sentence. He was therefore a convicted person at the latest when he submitted to that sentence.
3. The replacement of the public-work sentence by 200 days’ imprisonment meant that the original sentence had been entirely supplanted. The fact that the imprisonment order had to be served and could be challenged by appeal did not establish that it was unenforceable or that the sentencing process was necessarily incomplete.
4. For Part 1 purposes, the statutory scheme recognised two relevant classes: persons who had been sentenced and persons who had not. On the better view, the appellant had been sentenced to 200 days’ imprisonment and the conduct therefore satisfied section 65(3), subject to its other conditions. Even if the sentencing process was incomplete, the conduct satisfied section 64(3) on the basis that the maximum Czech penalty was two years’ imprisonment.
5. The court noted that questions could arise about the status of a person who retained a right to challenge a conviction, referring to Mihai Sonea v Mehedinti District Court [2009] EWHC 89 (Admin) and Usti Nad Labem Regional Court v MJ [2010] EWHC 463. It was unnecessary to resolve any possible inconsistency because the appellant accepted that no right to challenge the conviction itself existed in his case.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the appellant was arrested under the European Arrest Warrant and proceedings were listed for determination.
• District Judge Evans: on 16 June 2010 he found that the appellant had been convicted and ordered extradition; the order was made on 25 June 2010.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was dismissed.