Istanek v District Court of Prerov

Whether a European arrest warrant is an accusation warrant or a conviction warrant must be determined within the scheme of the Extradition Act 2003, having regard to the statements in the warrant and the criminal procedures of the requesting state.

A right to a retrial after conviction in absence does not, as a matter of law, make the person an accused person or invalidate a conviction warrant. The warrant will ordinarily be taken to describe accurately the requesting state’s procedures and the status attributed to the person by its judicial authority. The court must follow the Act’s step-by-step structure and avoid imposing a uniform English conception of finality.

The appellant had been convicted in his absence in the Czech Republic and was entitled under section 306a of the Czech Penal Code to apply for a full retrial within eight days of service of the conviction. The period had not begun because the Czech authorities intended to serve the conviction after his return.

The District Court of Prerov issued a European arrest warrant describing him as a convicted person. The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition under the Extradition Act 2003. An appeal to the High Court raised the question whether, because of the retrial right, the warrant should instead have been an accusation warrant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The European arrest warrant was validly issued as a conviction warrant.
2. The Extradition Act 2003 must operate across jurisdictions whose criminal procedures differ substantially. The statements and information required by section 2(3) to (6) will reflect the law and practice of the requesting state. A case treated as an accusation case in one state may be treated as a conviction case in another.
3. In deciding whether a warrant is valid under section 2, the court should ordinarily proceed on the basis of the statements made in the warrant by the requesting state’s judicial authority and categorise the facts according to that state’s law and procedure. Further inquiry may exceptionally be required.
4. The Framework Decision’s definition of a European arrest warrant contains no general requirement of finality. Where finality is relevant to a conviction warrant, its meaning is ordinarily determined by the requesting state’s criminal jurisdiction.
5. The existence of an unqualified right to a retrial after conviction in absence is not legally inconsistent with convicted status. Treating such a right as automatically converting every conviction case into an accusation case would impose an impermissible uniform approach and would conflict with the step-by-step structure of section 20.
6. The court disagreed with dicta in Bikar, Czech Republic v Janiega and Ruzicka v Slovakia insofar as inconsistent with those propositions, while finding that those cases were not wrongly decided on their facts. Sonea v Mehedinti District Court of Romania was correctly decided. The conviction warrant therefore complied with section 2 and the extradition order stood.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed and the European arrest warrant was held valid.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham ordered extradition on 22 September 2010.