Filipek v Lublin Provincial Court Poland

Appellants must identify, in their grounds of appeal, why the decision under challenge was wrong. A bare assertion of a right or intention to appeal is insufficient. Where the Administrative Court orders detailed grounds and a written argument, the order must be complied with or an extension sought. An adjournment may be refused where the request is made only after non-compliance and the proposed ground is plainly untenable. The court may dismiss the appeal on the available material where the procedural default is serious and the proposed challenge has no merit.

The claimant appealed against an order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham for his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. His notice of appeal merely stated that he appealed and wished to exercise his statutory right of appeal. The court ordered detailed grounds and a written summary of argument, but the order was not complied with and no extension was sought.

At the hearing, the claimant sought an adjournment to investigate an alleged abuse of process arising from the withdrawal of an earlier warrant and its replacement by a second warrant. The central issues were whether the procedural default justified disposal of the appeal and whether the proposed abuse argument had any arguable merit.

1. Grounds of appeal. The notice did not set out any ground of appeal. A statement that the appellant appeals, or wishes to exercise a statutory right of appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, does not explain why the district judge was wrong. The court emphasised that the adequacy and validity of such a notice remained subject to the applicable procedural law.
2. Non-compliance with the court’s order. The claimant failed to provide the ordered detailed grounds and written summary by the specified date. No application for an extension was made before or after the breach. The court was entitled to treat the matter as one for strike out or disposal on the available material. Solicitors must comply with court orders, and an unexplained administrative difficulty did not justify an adjournment.
3. Proposed abuse-of-process argument. The replacement warrant recorded prescription dates substantially later than those in the withdrawn warrant. Those dates reflected information previously provided to the earlier judge, namely that the claimant’s deliberate absence from Poland had suspended the relevant limitation period. The new warrant was not invalid, and correcting optional information in the earlier warrant could not plausibly constitute an abuse of process.
4. Disposition. The adjournment was refused. The claimant accepted that the appeal should then be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed as without merit.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham was dismissed. An earlier appeal concerning a withdrawn European arrest warrant had been dismissed by Davis J, but that earlier decision formed part of the same litigation.