Zboinski v Circuit Law Court In Swidnica Poland

In a conviction case involving several offences, a European arrest warrant is not invalid merely because it records one aggregate sentence for all offences. Where at least one offence satisfies the dual-criminality requirement and the total sentence is at least four months, the court may treat the conduct as a whole when applying section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The court must interpret Part 1 of the Act, so far as possible, consistently with the objectives of the Framework Decision and without allowing technical obstacles to defeat surrender.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland of three offences and received an aggregate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, initially suspended. A Polish European arrest warrant sought his surrender to serve that sentence. Two offences would constitute offences in England and Wales, but the third would not. The warrant did not allocate the aggregate sentence between the offences.

A District Judge ordered extradition. The appellant appealed, relying on Wiercinski; the respondent relied on Kucera. The central issue was whether the warrant satisfied the Extradition Act 2003 where the total sentence exceeded four months but the sentence attributable to the extraditable offences could not be identified.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had correctly held that the warrant satisfied section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. A single sentence for several offences did not invalidate the warrant. That conclusion followed Trepac v the Presiding Judge of the County Court in Trencin, Slovak Republic and Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland.
2. The statutory inquiry has two stages. First, the court determines whether the document is a Part 1 warrant by examining the requirements of section 2(5) and (6). The question whether the offences are extradition offences is considered at the second stage under section 10.
3. Because the warrant concerned multiple offences, section 10 had to be read as modified by the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003. The relevant question was whether any of the specified offences was an extradition offence.
4. The first two offences satisfied dual criminality under section 65(3)(b). Although the sentence attributable to each offence could not be identified, it was implicit in Pilecki that the court should disregard that difficulty where the total sentence exceeded four months and some offences satisfied section 65.
5. Lord Justice Jackson adopted the reasoning in Kucera v District Court of Karvina, Czech Republic and followed that decision. He declined to follow Wiercinski v 2nd Division of the Criminal Circuit in Olsztyn, Poland, because its technical approach would obstruct the objectives of the Framework Decision.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani rejected the appellant’s objection and ordered extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge’s order was upheld.