Borowski v Regional Court In Wloclawek Poland

For the purposes of section 2(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, a European arrest warrant need only state that extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecution for the specified offence. The prosecution need not be conducted by the particular regional court that issued the warrant, provided it is clear that the requested person will be prosecuted for that offence. Internal arrangements by which prosecuting authorities combine proceedings and transfer responsibility do not invalidate the warrant.

The issue of overlapping warrants is not, without more, an abuse of process where they concern criminal conduct spanning different jurisdictions or periods. Any question whether an individual charge is duplicated may be considered separately when the later extradition order is challenged.

An accusation warrant was issued by the Regional Court in Wloclawek and the appellant was ordered to be extradited by District Judge Arbuthnot. On appeal, he abandoned his original ground concerning whether one offence was an extradition offence.

He was permitted to rely on events occurring after the magistrates’ hearing. The prosecuting authorities in Wloclawek and Bielsko-Biala had agreed to combine proceedings, with Bielsko-Biala taking responsibility and any indictment being filed in the Regional Court in Katowice. The appellant argued that this showed no intention to prosecute under the Wloclawek warrant. Alternatively, he argued that seeking extradition under two overlapping warrants was an abuse of process.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the later events constituted new evidence and a new argument which could be raised on appeal, applying Szombathely City Court & Ors v Fenyvesi & Anor [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin).

2. Section 2(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires the warrant to state that extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecution for the offence. It does not require prosecution by the particular regional court which issued the warrant. The relevant question is whether it is clear that the appellant will be prosecuted for the offences identified in the warrant. The proposed transfer of responsibility between Polish prosecuting authorities was an internal administrative arrangement and did not undermine that requirement.

3. The court rejected the abuse-of-process argument. It was not abusive for prosecuting authorities in different courts to issue warrants concerning criminal conduct spanning their geographic jurisdictions and occurring over an extended period. The court agreed with the approach of Keith J in Voros v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary concerning that submission.

4. The court left open whether a particular charge in the second warrant might later be invalid because it precisely replicated a charge in the first warrant. That issue was for the appeal against the second extradition order. There was a public funding assessment of the appellant’s costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.

2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court — District Judge Arbuthnot ordered extradition on 15 March 2012.