Ciesielski, R (on the application of) v District Court In Kalisz, Poland

A European Arrest Warrant may include both conviction matters and accusation matters. The warrant must nevertheless make the distinction sufficiently clear and provide enough information for the requested person to understand the case against him and consider any extradition bars. The assessment is practical and fact-sensitive; unnecessary technicality should be avoided. In an extradition case, Article 8 will succeed only where the interference with family life is exceptionally grave. Ordinary hardship, including closure of a family business, financial difficulty and separation from family, will not ordinarily outweigh the public interest in international co-operation against crime. An offence attracting only a two-month sentence is not an extradition offence under Extradition Act 2003, section 65.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. The first warrant concerned four offences for which sentences remained to be served and two offences for which prosecution was sought. The second concerned three prosecution offences.

The claimant argued that the first warrant was defective because it combined conviction and accusation matters, failed to identify which offences fell into each category, and did not link each offence to a particular judicial decision. He also relied on Article 8 and argued that extradition would cause disproportionate hardship to his family and business. It was accepted that one offence carrying a two-month sentence was not an extradition offence.

1. The appeal was allowed in respect of offence 4 in the first warrant. Under section 65 of the Extradition Act 2003, the offence did not qualify as an extradition offence because the sentence imposed was two months. The extradition order was quashed and the claimant was discharged in respect of that offence under section 27(5)(a).

2. The remaining challenges to the first warrant failed. Section 2(2) does not require separate warrants for accusation and conviction matters. The word “or” identifies different information requirements; it does not prohibit both categories from appearing in one warrant. The approach is consistent with the Framework Decision, which does not impose that restriction.

3. The warrant sufficiently identified the categories of offence. The maximum sentences showed that offences 5 and 6 were accusation matters, while the sentences imposed showed that offences 1 to 4 were conviction matters. The warrant also enabled the claimant to understand the relevant judicial decisions and the basis of his conviction for offence 1. The question was whether the totality of the information, assessed without unnecessary technicality and in the circumstances of the case, gave sufficient particulars to enable him to understand what he was returning to and consider possible bars to extradition.

4. The Article 8 ground failed. The claimant bore the burden of showing that extradition would be disproportionate. The threshold was very high. Although extradition would cause substantial hardship, including loss of the family business, financial difficulty and separation from family, those consequences did not outweigh the legitimate objective of international co-operation in combating crime.

5. The court declined to certify a question of law of general public importance concerning section 2(2), finding the suggested restriction clear and unsupported by the statutory scheme or authorities.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the District Judge’s extradition order was allowed only in respect of offence 4 in the first warrant. The order was quashed and the claimant discharged for that offence; the remaining grounds were dismissed.