Zajaczkowski v Sad Rejonowy W Malborku Poland

An extradition appeal under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 is invalid unless notice is both filed and served within the statutory seven-day period. The court has no power to extend that period. Repeated adjournments to await a possible appeal, compromise or other development should not ordinarily create an indirect bar to extradition. A suspended sentence activated after conviction does not constitute a conviction in the person’s absence for the purposes of section 20. Article 8 family-life rights will prevent extradition only where exceptionally compelling circumstances make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant appealed against an order of District Judge Evans at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 9 June 2011, directing his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The request concerned an outstanding two-year sentence imposed for offences involving counterfeit banknotes and an altered driving licence.

The appellant’s notice of appeal was served on 16 June 2011 or later. He also relied on proposed proceedings or compromise in Poland, the circumstances of his conviction, his family life in the United Kingdom and his employment history. The central issues were whether the appeal was validly brought and, if so, whether those grounds required refusal or adjournment of extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, notice had to be given before the end of the permitted period, namely seven days beginning with the day on which the extradition order was made. Following Mucelli v Government of Albania and Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor of Creteil, France [2009] 1 WLR 276, giving notice required both filing and service within that period. The court had no power to extend time. The notice was served after the permitted period, so there was no valid appeal and the court had no jurisdiction.

2. The proposed adjournments were not justified. The court applied the guidance in Baghishyan v District Court In Zamusc Poland [2011] EWHC 1297 (Admin): proceedings should not ordinarily be adjourned to await an appeal, sentence challenge, quashing application or possible compromise. Such an adjournment would introduce an indirect bar to extradition beyond the statutory bars in the Act.

3. The absence-from-trial ground under section 20 did not assist the appellant. Box D of the European arrest warrant indicated that he had been present at trial and conviction. In any event, activation of a suspended sentence did not amount to a conviction for section 20 purposes, as explained in Baksys v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2007] EWHC 2838 (Admin).

4. The appellant’s family life, employment and references did not meet the high Article 8 threshold. Applying Norris v Government of United States of America [2010] UKSC 9, extradition would be disproportionate only where exceptionally compelling features, individually or cumulatively, were present. No such features existed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Evans at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 9 June 2011.