Olczak v Polish Judicial Authority

In an accusation case, whether conduct constitutes an extraditable offence is assessed from the arrest warrant as a whole. An omission to tick a particular offence category does not prevent extradition where the warrant clearly describes conduct which would amount to an offence in the United Kingdom. Whether the alleged conduct is ultimately proved is for the requesting state. A party must comply with an order requiring grounds and evidence by a specified date. Late material may be excluded, subject only to the court’s possible duty to prevent a clear breach of human rights.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to face an accusation of obtaining a loan by allegedly presenting a false employment certificate. Before the District Judge, no challenge was made to extradition.

On appeal, the claimant argued that the warrant did not disclose an extraditable offence, that delay in issuing the domestic and extradition warrants was excessive, and that extradition would breach Article 8. He also sought to rely on evidence served substantially out of time following an order requiring grounds and evidence to be lodged by 12 July 2012.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the claimant had not shown a good ground of appeal.

2. The order requiring full grounds, a skeleton argument and supporting evidence to be lodged within 14 days had to be obeyed. The solicitors’ failure to comply was inexcusable. The court would ordinarily determine the appeal on the material lodged in time and would not admit further evidence served late. The possible exception was where the material disclosed a clear human-rights breach requiring the court, as a public authority under the Human Rights Act, to have regard to it.

3. There was no strong case that extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8. The claimant could not rely on family life, and the asserted private-life interference did not make extradition disproportionate on the evidence.

4. The delay argument under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 failed. The claimant had not established that the delay in issuing the domestic warrant was culpable. The court could not make that finding where the explanation was raised only after the deadline and the available material did not establish culpability.

5. The warrant disclosed an extraditable offence. It described the allegation as a credit swindle based on dishonest conduct in seeking a loan. The omission, if any, to tick a box identifying swindling among the listed offences was immaterial because the warrant, read as a whole, made the nature of the alleged conduct clear. Whether the allegation would ultimately be proved was a matter for the Polish authorities.

6. A legal aid order was made, but the relevant authorities were entitled to consider whether the solicitors should receive the full amount claimed in view of their failure to comply with the court’s order.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Olczak v Polish Judicial Authority [2012] EWHC 3039 (Admin); appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• District Judge: on 25 May 2012, ordered the claimant’s return to Poland.