Usti Nad Labem Regional Court (Czech Republic) v Janiga

For the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, a conviction is not final or enforceable where the requested person has an automatic right to have the judgment reversed and the case reopened or retried. In that event, the person remains an accused person, and an arrest warrant issued under the provisions applicable to accused persons may remain valid.

On an appeal under section 29, fresh evidence may be admitted where it was genuinely unavailable at the extradition hearing and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. An adjournment should be granted where significant evidence or a newly raised issue requires further investigation, particularly where refusal may prevent extradition altogether.

The Usti Nad Labem Regional Court appealed against District Judge Evans’s decision ordering the discharge of Miroslav Janiga under section 10(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. Janiga had been convicted and sentenced in the Czech Republic in his absence, but Czech law gave him an automatic right to seek reversal of the judgment and a new trial after extradition.

The European arrest warrant had been issued while he was an accused person and contained the information required for that category, but not the particulars required for a convicted person. The central issues were whether the conviction was final and enforceable, whether fresh evidence could be admitted on appeal, and whether the District Judge should have adjourned the hearing.

1. The appeal was allowed. The District Judge had used the wrong statutory mechanism. If the warrant was invalid, he should have declared it invalid rather than discharging the respondent under section 10(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The District Judge failed to address the first and essential question: the respondent’s status at the time of the extradition hearing. The evidence from the Czech judicial authority stated that the respondent could apply for reversal of the judgment and that the court was obliged to grant the application. This demonstrated that the conviction was not final and enforceable. The respondent therefore remained an accused person for the purposes of the Act.
3. The warrant was valid because, when issued, and at the extradition hearing, it contained the statement and information required by sections 2(3) and 2(4) for an accused person. The provisions applicable to convicted persons were not engaged.
4. The further Czech evidence was admissible under section 29(4). It had not been before the District Judge, the delay resulted from the communication and translation process, and the appellant had acted with reasonable diligence. The principles stated in The Szombathely City Court and Others v Fenyvesi and Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 Admin were applied.
5. The District Judge should have granted an adjournment. He failed to consider significant evidence, failed to investigate the consequences of declaring the warrant invalid, and wrongly assumed that a new warrant could readily be issued. Had the evidence been considered, he would have found that the warrant was valid.

It was unnecessary to determine the separate issue concerning the date at which the respondent’s status should be assessed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal from the decision of District Judge Evans at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates Court: ordered the respondent’s discharge under section 10(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court held that the warrant should instead have been declared invalid if invalidity had been established, but concluded that the warrant was valid.