Skrzypczak v The Circuit Court In Poznan (A Polish Judicial Authority)

An European arrest warrant remains valid despite an immaterial typographical error where the warrant, read as a whole, gives a sensible and non-misleading account of the alleged offending. The court should assess the description with reasonable clarity and detail, allowing for differences between jurisdictions and translation difficulties. It should avoid a pedantic or overly technical approach, while rejecting an unintelligible warrant. The warrant must also provide sufficient particulars of the possible sentence under the law of the requesting territory. Where the warrant identifies the applicable offences and states the maximum penalties for them, the statutory requirement is satisfied even if the alleged conduct is described as one offence involving concurrent provisions.

The appellant challenged the decision of District Judge Zani, who had ordered her extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant alleged a single offence involving six instances of fraud, credit defrauding and forgery, committed between September 2004 and February 2005. The appellant argued that the warrant was invalid under sections 2(4)(c) and (d) and 2(6)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003.

The challenges concerned an apparent 2001 date, the translation and construction of Article 12 of the Polish Penal Code, and the adequacy of the sentencing particulars.

1. Appeal dismissed. The European arrest warrant fulfilled section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and the order for extradition was upheld.
2. The reference to 21 September 2001 was an immaterial typographical error. The narrative stated that the offending occurred between September 2004 and February 2005, the six amounts totalled the stated aggregate, and the appellant could not have been misled. The warrant was therefore not invalidated.
3. The court applied a sensible and cooperative approach to the translated warrant. Under Fofana v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux, France [2006] EWHC 744 (Admin), excessive specificity was not required. The approach in Lubomir Balint v Municipal Court in Prague, Czech Republic [2011] EWHC 498 (Admin) was adopted: the conduct had to be described with reasonable clarity and detail, but the court had to allow for differing methods of particularising offences and translation from a foreign language. The warrant was intelligible and met that standard.
4. The proper construction and application of Article 12 were matters principally for the Polish court. Nevertheless, the provision could sensibly be read as permitting similar wrongful acts at short intervals against legal persons to be treated as one offence. Different individual victims would produce a different result. The warrant was sufficiently clear and could properly present the allegations as one offence for extradition purposes.
5. The sentencing information satisfied section 2(4)(d) and section 2(6)(d). The warrant identified the relevant Polish provisions and stated maximum penalties of eight years for Article 286(1), and five years for Articles 270(1) and 297(1). It therefore gave particulars of the sentence which might be imposed for the offence.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani’s decision to order extradition was upheld; appeal dismissed, [2011] EWHC 1194 (Admin).
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani rejected the challenges to the European arrest warrant and ordered extradition. The decision was handed down on 11 February 2011.