Srama, R (on the application of) v The District Court In Bydgoszcz Poland

A European Arrest Warrant must contain particulars of the sentence which may actually be imposed for the alleged offence. It is insufficient to state merely that the sentence exceeds 12 months, even where that would establish an extradition offence. Where the applicable foreign law requires an earlier sentencing regime to be used because it is more favourable to the defendant, the warrant must specify that regime or explain the route by which it will apply. Materially incorrect sentencing particulars go to the validity of the warrant and are not saved because correcting them would make no difference to extradition eligibility.

The District Court in Bydgoszcz sought the extradition of a Polish citizen to face trial for alleged drug-manufacturing offences committed in 2004. A previous warrant had been quashed, and a revised European Arrest Warrant was certified in 2010.

District Judge Wickham ordered extradition from Westminster Magistrates’ Court. On appeal, the claimant challenged the warrant’s validity under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The warrant identified the 2005 Polish narcotics legislation and stated a sentencing range of three to 15 years, although the legislation in force when the alleged offences were committed provided a range of three months to five years. The central issue was whether the warrant contained the particulars of the sentence which might actually be imposed.

1. Appeal allowed. The European Arrest Warrant was invalid because it gave particulars of a sentencing regime which, on the prosecutor’s own case, would not be applied on conviction.
2. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the requesting territory. That requirement goes beyond stating that the possible sentence exceeds 12 months for the purposes of section 64. The warrant must specify the relevant sentencing particulars with sufficient accuracy.
3. The principles in Office of King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67; [2006] 2 AC 1 and Dabas v the High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6; [2007] 2 AC 31 confirmed the importance of the warrant’s contents. A warrant which fails to meet the statutory requirements is not a Part One Warrant, and the defect cannot be supplied by extraneous information.
4. Although the offence-creating wording in the 1997 and 2005 Polish Acts was identical, the sentencing provisions differed materially. The prosecutor relied on Article 4 of the Polish Penal Code to establish that the 1997 sentencing regime would apply because it was more favourable. That meant the warrant should have specified the 1997 regime or expressly explained how Article 4 would produce that result.
5. The defect was substantive rather than technical. The person whose extradition was sought was entitled to know the sentencing regime faced, including for human-rights and oppression-related purposes. It was for the prosecuting authority to provide correct particulars. The claimant’s publicly funded costs were assessed.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wickham ordered the claimant’s extradition on 10 August 2010.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed and the European Arrest Warrant was held invalid.