Wozniuk, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Bialystok

For a conviction-based European arrest warrant, Extradition Act 2003, section 2(6)(b), requires sufficient particulars of the conviction, but does not impose an inflexible requirement that the conviction date be stated expressly. The provision must be construed purposively in the context of the Council Framework Decision. The court must assess the totality of the information and the circumstances of the individual case. The warrant should enable the requested person to understand what conviction and sentence are relied on and to consider whether any bar to extradition applies. A cumulative judgment may satisfy the requirement where the warrant identifies the enforceable judgment, sentence, relevant offences, and sufficient details of their circumstances, even though the dates on which the convictions were recorded are not separately stated.

The claimant appealed under section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision dated 28 July 2010 ordering his extradition to Poland. The European arrest warrant relied on an enforceable cumulative judgment of the District Court in Bialystok, incorporating convictions for robbery, witness intimidation and burglary.

The claimant argued that the warrant failed to provide sufficient particulars of conviction because it did not expressly state the dates on which the convictions were recorded. The central issue was whether section 2(6)(b) required an express conviction date in every conviction warrant.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant satisfied section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Part 1 of the Act implements the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002. The statutory provisions concerning European arrest warrants must therefore be construed purposively, consistently with the simplified scheme intended to reduce complexity and delay. That approach must nevertheless preserve sufficient information to enable the requested person to consider possible bars to extradition.
3. The requirement for particulars of conviction is distinct from the requirement for particulars of the underlying offences. The appropriate level of particularity depends on the circumstances. The court should avoid unnecessary technicality, while ensuring that the warrant communicates the substance of the statutory information.
4. Section 2(6)(b) does not invariably require the date of conviction to be stated expressly. The question is whether, considering the warrant as a whole, the fact and circumstances of the conviction can be ascertained.
5. Here, the warrant identified the enforceable cumulative judgment, the issuing court, the judgment date, the sentence imposed, the remaining sentence, the immediate effect of the sentence, and the three identified and particularised offences. It therefore enabled the claimant to know what he had been accused of, convicted of and sentenced for, and why the warrant had been issued.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the claimant appealed against the decision of District Judge Zani dated 28 July 2010 and the appeal was dismissed.