Krzeminsksi v District Court In Bydgoszcz, Poland

An extradition warrant must contain the statutory particulars required by Extradition Act 2003, and those requirements are mandatory. A warrant that fails to comply is invalid for the purposes of Part 1. Extraneous material may be considered only in exceptional circumstances, normally involving fundamental error, unfairness or bad faith in the issuing state. Where the warrant properly states the sentence to be served, an incorrect date for a later variation of that sentence does not ordinarily invalidate the warrant.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland made by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 5 March 2012. Poland’s European Arrest Warrant stated that a four-year sentence had been imposed by the Regional Court in Bydgoszcz on 14 January 2002. The appellant accepted that four years remained to be served, but argued that the warrant was defective because the four-year sentence had in fact been substituted on 11 September 2002.

The issue was whether the warrant complied with section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether extraneous material could be used to establish the date and validity of the sentence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant accepted that the effective sentence in Poland was four years. His challenge concerned only the date stated in the European Arrest Warrant.
2. The requirements governing the contents of a European Arrest Warrant under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 are mandatory. A warrant which does not comply with them is not a Part 1 warrant to which Part 1 of the Act applies. The requirement in section 2(6)(e) is for particulars of the sentence imposed, rather than merely an indication that the sentence exceeds the statutory threshold.
3. The court adopted the reasoning in Office of King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC and Srama v District Judge in Bydgoszcz, Poland [2010] EWHC 3320 (Admin) concerning mandatory compliance and the importance of particularity.
4. Extraneous material should be admitted only exceptionally. The approach in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) permits its admission where there is fundamental error, fundamental unfairness or bad faith in the issuing state. No such circumstance was shown here.
5. Even if the extraneous material were admitted, it would not affect validity. The warrant properly particularised the sentence as four years. The fact that the sentence was varied on a later date did not undermine the particulars of the sentence concerned.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court’s extradition order of 5 March 2012 was dismissed.