Bulkowski v Regional Court of Elblag, Poland

A European arrest warrant is not invalid merely because it does not state that an imposed sentence was suspended. The warrant must provide particulars sufficient to identify the conviction and sentence, but the Extradition Act 2003 should not be read as imposing formalities beyond those required by the Framework Decision. Extrinsic evidence cannot supplement a warrant which fails to contain the required statement, or ordinarily invalidate a warrant which is valid on its face, subject only to an equivocal wording exception. Article 8 hardship must meet the high threshold applicable to extradition cases before it can make extradition disproportionate.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Evans’s order for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European arrest warrant. The warrant recorded a one-year custodial sentence and stated that one year remained to be served, but did not state that the sentence had allegedly been suspended. The claimant argued that the warrant therefore failed to satisfy section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003. He also relied on the hardship that extradition would cause his partner and children under Article 8. The central issues were whether the warrant was valid and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. Validity of the warrant. The appeal was dismissed. Section 2(6)(e) required particulars of the sentence imposed. On the face of the warrant, that requirement was ostensibly met. The statutory and Framework Decision provisions were intended to facilitate extradition and should not be converted into empty technicalities.
2. Evidence outside the warrant that the sentence had been suspended was inadmissible. A warrant which does not conform to a required statement cannot be supplemented by extraneous information. Conversely, a warrant valid for section 2 purposes ordinarily cannot later be invalidated by subsequent extraneous information. The exception for equivocal wording did not apply.
3. In any event, the absence of a statement that the sentence was suspended was not fatal. The reasoning in Kuchta v District Court of Czestochowa was understood as requiring only the date on which sentence was imposed, without further detail about suspension. The decisions in Jeriorowski v Regional Court of Torun, Florescu v Lasi High Court of Law Romania and Polkowski v District Court in Kalisz, Poland supported the same conclusion. The executing state needed to know the length of the sentence to determine whether the warrant fell within the statutory scope. The warrant also enabled the claimant to understand the conviction and sentence and to identify any available bars to extradition.
4. Article 8. Although financial and personal hardship would result, the evidence fell well short of the high threshold recognised in Norris. The District Judge’s conclusion was one with which the High Court could not properly interfere.
5. The appeal was dismissed. Public funding costs were granted on detailed assessment, with no other order as to costs.

• District Judge: On 14 July 2001, District Judge Evans ordered extradition and rejected the arguments concerning the warrant and Article 8 hardship.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.