Strzyzewski v Polish Judicial Authority

On an appeal against extradition orders, new points or evidence will generally not be entertained where they were available below and no proper explanation is given for their omission. A dispute about time already served concerns execution of the sentence, rather than the validity of the European Arrest Warrant. Article 8 will displace the public interest in extradition only in sufficiently compelling circumstances.

The claimant appealed against two extradition orders made by District Judge Snow at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He challenged the first European Arrest Warrant on the grounds that part of the sentence had already been served and that he had been absent from the proceedings leading to conviction. He also relied on alleged interpretation difficulties and Article 8 family considerations. The central issues were whether those matters could properly be raised for the first time on appeal and whether they outweighed the public interest in extradition.

1. New points and evidence. The court rejected the challenges to the first warrant. The claimant had been represented by an experienced extradition solicitor before the District Judge, had raised no relevant bar or challenge, and had not sought an adjournment. The matters relied upon were within his knowledge. The alleged interpretation difficulty was unsupported by any attempt to identify or obtain evidence from the interpreter. The established principles governing the reception of new evidence on appeal therefore were not satisfied.
2. Time already served. Any question whether the claimant had served part of the sentence did not affect the validity of the European Arrest Warrant. If established, it could be resolved by the Polish authorities after his return.
3. Absence from proceedings. The court relied on Baksys v Lithuania [2007] EWHC 2838 (Admin) for the conclusion that absence from the hearing at which sentence was activated would not assist the claimant in challenging the warrant. The merits of the claim that he had been absent at conviction were in any event not properly before the court.
4. Interpretation evidence. Sondy v Crown Prosecution Service [2010] EWHC 108 (Admin) concerned inadequate legal advice or representation. It was not directly applicable, although the court considered there was a loose analogy with an alleged failure of interpretation.
5. Article 8. The claimant’s limited contact with his young son did not establish dependence or circumstances approaching the exceptional threshold required to outweigh the public interest in maintaining extradition arrangements.
6. The appeal was dismissed. An assessment of costs was permitted because the claimant was publicly funded.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 30 October 2012, Mr Justice Foskett dismissed the appeal against the extradition orders made by District Judge Snow at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.