Zakrzewski v District Court In Torun, Poland & Anor

Under Extradition Act 2003, a European arrest warrant must accurately state the sentence imposed at the time the requested person is to be extradited. Where the requesting state later replaces individual sentences with an operative aggregate sentence, the existing warrant becomes inaccurate. The requesting authority must withdraw it and issue a new warrant containing the current sentence. The statutory requirements for a Part 1 warrant are mandatory.

Article 8 family and private life considerations rarely outweigh the public interest in extradition. Family hardship, mental-health difficulties, risk of self-harm and an uncertain period remaining to be served do not, without exceptionally compelling circumstances, make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant challenged an order made under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 for his extradition to Poland under two conviction European arrest warrants. The second warrant concerned six offences and four sentences. After its issue, the Polish courts imposed an aggregate sentence of one year and ten months covering those offences.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the second warrant remained valid under section 2(6)(e) despite the later aggregate sentence, and whether extradition under either warrant would breach Article 8 ECHR, having regard to family circumstances, mental health and time already spent in custody.

1. The second warrant was invalid. Section 2(6)(e) requires particulars of the sentence imposed. The later Polish order was a judicial order imposing the operative aggregate sentence, not merely a calculation of the remaining time to be served. The individual sentences remained valid but were no longer operative.
2. The reasoning in Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland [2008] UKHL 7, [2008] 1 WLR 325 was consistent with that conclusion. The court must know the sentence which the requesting state has ordered the person to serve. The information must therefore relate to the current operative sentence, because sentence length determines whether the conduct constitutes an extradition offence under section 65.
3. Section 2(6) imposes a discrete information requirement. It is not limited by the position existing when the warrant was issued. The Framework Decision likewise requires information about the penalty imposed in the final judgment.
4. The contents of a Part 1 warrant are mandatory. If a warrant fails to comply with section 2, it is not a Part 1 warrant and Part 1 of the Act does not apply. Where the sentence is subsequently varied, the requesting authority must withdraw the warrant and issue a new, accurate warrant.
5. Article 8 did not prevent extradition under the first warrant. Applying the very high threshold identified in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9, the appellant's relationship with his fiancée and child, family hardship, mental-health history, risk of self-harm and the possibility that only a short period remained to be served were insufficiently compelling. The calculation of time served was principally for the Polish authorities.
6. The appeal was allowed in relation to the second warrant. The appellant was discharged and the extradition order on that warrant was quashed. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the first warrant, and extradition on that warrant was ordered.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the District Judge's extradition order was allowed in relation to the second warrant and dismissed in relation to the first warrant.