District Court of Warszawa Poland , R.(On Application of) v Kubun

Under the Extradition Act 2003 and the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003, a warrant containing several alleged offences may remain effective for an offence that is properly specified even though another offence is defective. The court must assess each offence separately.

Section 2(4)(c) requires sufficient particulars of the circumstances, including the alleged conduct, time and place, to enable the person sought to understand the allegations. The requirement must be applied purposively and without excessive pedantry, but the description must be sufficiently clear. A warrant which leaves the place, conduct, documents and nature of the alleged transaction materially uncertain is defective.

Two linked appeals concerned a European arrest warrant issued in Poland in respect of two alleged offences involving Mercedes Sprinter vehicles.

The district judge ordered extradition on the first offence, which concerned the use of a false customs document, but discharged the defendant on the second offence because the warrant did not adequately specify the alleged conduct, time and place. The defendant appealed against extradition on the first offence. The issuing authority appealed against discharge on the second.

The central issues were whether a defect in one allegation invalidated the entire warrant and whether the second allegation complied with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Effect of multiple offences. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. The Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003, made under sections 207 and 223(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, modifies the Act so that a judge may order discharge in relation to a defective offence only and proceed to extradition in relation to any properly established offence. Any construction making the modifications to section 10 ineffective would defeat the purpose of the Order. The court approved its earlier reasoning in Taylor v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Berlin [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin).
2. Requirements of section 2(4)(c). The warrant must provide a description, in substance rather than merely legal language, of how the alleged offence occurred. It must give sufficient information about when and where it occurred and the person’s alleged involvement. The requirements must be read purposively, balancing the need to inform the person sought against the objective of simplifying extradition procedures. The court applied the approach in Ektor v National Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin).
3. Second offence. The issuing authority’s appeal was dismissed. Although the time period was adequately specified, the warrant referred to an unidentified place and failed to make clear whether the alleged conduct concerned an actual, intended or attempted sale, where the material transaction occurred, what documents were forged or used, and what the defendant was alleged to have done. The description was therefore too vague to satisfy section 2(4)(c).
4. Both appeals were dismissed and the district judge’s decisions were upheld.

High Court (Administrative Court): The linked appeals from the district judge’s extradition decisions were dismissed. The extradition order on the first offence and discharge on the second offence were upheld.