Hajda v Polish Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal, ambiguity in a European arrest warrant does not necessarily invalidate it. The court must read the warrant as a whole and ask whether its meaning is sufficiently clear to satisfy the statutory requirements. Clerical inconsistencies in one part of the warrant may be disregarded where the remaining contents make the nature of the warrant and the offences clear. Fresh evidence on an Article 8 ground will generally be excluded where it could, and should, have been placed before the district judge and is unlikely to affect the outcome.

The claimant appealed against an order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot for his extradition to Poland. The European arrest warrant concerned one earlier burglary conviction, for which a sentence of one year’s imprisonment had been imposed, and two later alleged offences involving burglary and the supply of cannabis.

The claimant pursued an Article 8 argument and contended that the warrant was ambiguous. The alleged ambiguity arose from inconsistent entries in box D, including references suggesting both a conviction and an accusation warrant. The central issues were whether fresh Article 8 evidence should be admitted and whether the warrant satisfied the requirements of the Act.

1. Article 8 evidence. The court refused to admit the fresh evidence. Applying the principles in Fenyvesi, the material could and should have been placed before the district judge. It was also unlikely to be decisive. The Article 8 ground therefore provided no basis for allowing the appeal.
2. Construction of the warrant. A European arrest warrant must be read overall. The formal requirements of such warrants and the consequences of ambiguity were addressed by reference to Dabas v Spain [2007] UKHL 6, including Lord Hope’s discussion at paragraph 50.
3. The entries in box D contained inconsistencies. One passage stated that the claimant had not appeared at a trial, while another referred to a period for requesting a retrial or appeal. Those passages were inconsistent with an accusation warrant.
4. Nevertheless, the warrant as a whole made the position sufficiently clear. Boxes B, C and E showed that the earlier matter, reference IIK-282/06, was a conviction warrant relating to an existing one-year sentence. The later matters, reference K465/07, were accusation warrants concerning offences carrying a maximum sentence of ten years. The inconsistencies were clerical errors and did not create substantive uncertainty.
5. The appeal failed on both grounds. The extradition order remained in force. The claimant was granted a detailed assessment of costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot remained in force.