Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica, Poland

For an appeal under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, notice must be both filed and served within the seven-day period. The document must purport to be a notice of appeal and must identify the appellant, identify the decision challenged, and state at least the gist of the proposed grounds. These are irreducible minimum requirements. Other procedural defects, including failure to use form N161 or failure to serve a sealed copy, may be curable under CPR 3.10. A complete but unsealed notice can therefore satisfy the statutory requirement, whereas service of only the first page of the form cannot.

Four appellants challenged extradition orders made by the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. The court adjourned Rozanski’s case because he had not been produced. It considered the preliminary issue whether notices of appeal had been given within the period prescribed by section 26(4).

Ungureanu had served a full but unsealed notice within time. Lukaszewski and Pomiechowski had served only the first page of form N161 within time, with complete notices arriving later. The central issue was what document must be filed and served to constitute a valid notice of appeal.

1. The court applied Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276; [2009] UKHL 2. Notice under section 26(4) must be both filed and served within the non-extendable seven-day period.

2. The document filed and served must purport to be a notice of appeal. It must identify the appellant, identify the decision challenged, and set out at least the gist of the basis on which the appeal is to be presented. These requirements form an irreducible minimum. If any is entirely absent, the document is not a notice of appeal and the defect cannot be cured under CPR 3.10.

3. Form N161 is highly desirable, but the rules do not make its use essential. A sealed copy is also desirable because it confirms filing, but the absence of the seal is not an incurable defect. Other procedural defects may be corrected under CPR 3.10. In this respect the court declined to follow the approach in Regional Court in Konin, Poland v Walerianczyk [2010] EWHC 2149 (Admin), so far as it treated a sealed copy as essential.

4. Ungureanu’s full but unsealed notice satisfied section 26(4), and his appeal was adjourned for substantive consideration. The first pages served in Lukaszewski’s and Pomiechowski’s cases identified neither the decision challenged nor any grounds, so their purported appeals were dismissed. Rozanski’s case was adjourned.

5. The court endorsed the practical suggestion in Szelagowski v Regional Court of Piotrkow Trybunalski Poland [2011] EWHC 1033 (Admin) that appellants should receive clear information about the seven-day period and the essential constituents of a notice.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: extradition orders were made against the four appellants.
• High Court (Administrative Court): determined the preliminary section 26(4) issue. Ungureanu’s notice was accepted as in time; Lukaszewski’s and Pomiechowski’s purported appeals were dismissed; Rozanski’s case was adjourned.