Andrzejak v Polish Judicial Authority

In a Part 1 extradition appeal, the seven-day statutory requirement for giving notice of appeal to the court is strict. The court may, however, take a broad view of what constitutes notice to the court and may extend or waive the separate time requirement for notifying other parties where that obligation arises from the rules. On the merits, an appellate court will generally confine matters to those raised before the extradition judge, absent exceptional circumstances. Unsupported detention, conviction-in-absence and health complaints do not justify interfering with extradition where the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.

District Judge Zani ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 May 2012 under two European arrest warrants dated 26 January and 7 September 2009. The claimant, acting without representation, sought to appeal in writing. He notified the magistrates’ court on 18 May that he wished to appeal and, on 21 May, emailed an appeal form. Notice to the other parties was subsequently given by fax on 29 May.

The claimant also raised new complaints concerning pre-hearing detention, conviction in his absence and ill health. The central issues were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, if so, whether those complaints justified allowing it.

1. Jurisdiction. Following Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 20 and Lumenica v Government of Albania and Others [2012] EWHC 2589 (Admin), notice of a Part 1 appeal must be given to the court within seven days. That statutory requirement is strict and cannot be altered by the court.
2. The court may adopt a broad approach to what amounts to notice of appeal to the court. The separate obligation to notify other parties derives from the rules, and the court has discretion to waive or extend time for compliance. Applying Halligen and Lumenica, the email of 21 May constituted good notice to the court, and time for notifying the other parties was extended to validate the fax of 29 May.
3. New grounds. Section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 confines appeal issues, save in exceptional circumstances, to matters raised before the extradition judge. The claimant’s complaints had not been raised below.
4. The claimant’s 33 hours in detention before being brought before the court were insufficient to render an otherwise lawful extradition improper. The European arrest warrant certificates and accompanying paperwork contradicted his assertion that he had been convicted in his absence. His health complaints were unsupported by medical evidence and, even if supported, were not such as to make extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.
5. The appeal therefore failed on the merits, although the court had jurisdiction to hear it. The claimant could be removed to Poland in due course.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed on the merits after the court accepted jurisdiction.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Poland on 15 May 2012.