Pitas v Polish Judicial Authority

For extradition purposes, the description of an offence in a European Arrest Warrant must be read as a whole. An apparent typographical error or imprecision does not prevent the warrant from identifying an equivalent domestic offence where its overall wording makes the essential facts sufficiently clear. A submission that property may have been abandoned will fail where the warrant, read in context, identifies an owner or person suffering detriment. Attempted dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another has an equivalent offence in English law.

The appellant challenged his extradition under three conviction European Arrest Warrants issued by the Regional Court at Tarnow. Before the District Judge, the issue concerned whether certain offences involving property in abandoned buildings were extradition offences. On appeal, the issue was narrowed to an attempted appropriation of a malfunctioning fuel bowser from a closed fuel station.

The appellant argued that the warrant did not establish that the bowser belonged to anyone, since it might have been abandoned or affixed to abandoned land. The central issue was whether, on a proper reading of the warrant, the offence had an equivalent offence in English law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant was to be read by taking its opening paragraph together with the individual offences. The court was entitled to resolve an apparent typographical error by adopting the only sensible reading of the document.
2. The opening paragraph stated that property had been appropriated to the detriment of the Commune Office in Radlów. Although the eighth offence referred only to an attempted appropriation of a malfunctioning fuel bowser from a closed fuel station, the warrant identified the Commune Office as the owner or person suffering detriment. The court therefore rejected the suggestion that the property was alleged to be abandoned.
3. The values stated for the seventh and eighth offences, when corrected for the apparent error in the seventh offence, corresponded with the total value stated in the opening paragraph. That provided further confirmation that the eighth offence was one of the attempted appropriations described there.
4. Accordingly, the warrant accurately identified an offence with an English equivalent. The appeal was dismissed. An application concerning legal aid funding was granted if required.

1. District Judge: The appellant was arrested and brought before District Judge Zani, who proceeded on the basis that the extradition issue concerned whether certain offences were extradition offences.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was narrowed to the eighth offence in the second warrant and was dismissed.