Draszonowski v District Court of Czestochowa

Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 applies only to a conviction in absentia. It does not apply where a person was present at the original conviction and a later decision merely requires the person to serve the balance of the sentence imposed. The later decision is consequential upon the original conviction and sentence; it is neither a fresh conviction nor a fresh sentence. An absence of detail in the warrant about conditions attached to conditional release does not, without more, bring the matter within section 2 or section 20.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Evans’s decision of 9 December 2011 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve four months remaining from sentences imposed for several offences.

The appellant had been convicted in Poland while present. After he left Poland following conditional release, a Polish court decided in 2006 that he should be recalled to serve the balance of his sentence. The warrant did not identify the conditions allegedly breached. The central issue was whether the later requirement to serve the balance constituted, or was equivalent to, a conviction in absentia for the purposes of section 20.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s extradition order was therefore maintained.

2. The court accepted, for the purpose of deciding the appeal, that no material condition prohibited the appellant from leaving Poland. That assumption did not affect the result. The warrant’s failure to specify the conditions of conditional release was not material because the matter did not fall within section 2, and the appellant did not contend otherwise.

3. Section 20 applies only to convictions in absentia. The appellant had been present when convicted. The later requirement that he serve the balance of the sentence arose from the original sentence and involved no fresh conviction or fresh sentence.

4. The court followed Baksys v Lithuania [2007] EWHC 2828 (Admin), in which the Divisional Court held that section 20 applied only to convictions. The court considered that decision clearly right and found no basis for departing from it.

5. The appellant’s submission that an inference could be drawn that the prohibition on leaving Poland was the only condition was rejected. The available material did not support that inference, but the point was immaterial to the statutory issue.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• District Judge Evans: On 9 December 2011, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland to serve the balance of his sentences.