Bartkowiak v Judicial Authority of Poland

Section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a European Arrest Warrant to state the sentence or sentences imposed for the relevant offence or offences. It does not require the warrant to state the total sentence resulting from multiple offences. The statutory purpose is to enable the court to determine whether the minimum four-month sentence threshold for extradition is met. Once the information supplied permits that conclusion, the warrant is sufficient. Additional information about the overall sentence, bail or other statutory bars may be useful, but its absence does not invalidate the warrant.

The appellant challenged an order of the Senior District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland. The European Arrest Warrant identified seven offences arising from five Polish judgments and stated individual or aggregated sentences, but did not expressly state the total sentence to be served. The central issue was whether that omission made the warrant defective under section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003, read with the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003.

1. The appeal was dismissed and the order for extradition was sustained.
2. Section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars of the sentence imposed under the law of the category 1 territory. Its purpose is to enable the court to decide whether the offence or offences satisfy the statutory minimum sentence requirement in section 65(3) and (4).
3. The Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003 does not require the warrant to state a single aggregate sentence whenever multiple offences are involved. Its operation depends on context, so particulars may properly consist of individual sentences, an aggregated sentence, or both.
4. Where the sentences stated in the warrant enable the English court to conclude that the four-month threshold is met, the warrant is not defective merely because it does not explain the overall effect of the sentences. A requirement that the warrant always disclose the total sentence would be excessive and otiose.
5. The appellant’s additional practical advantages, including information relevant to bail and other statutory bars, did not alter the statutory construction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order and sustained the order to extradite.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Riddle ordered extradition to Poland. The date or citation of that decision was not stated in the judgment.