Pelka v Judge Radomir Boguszewski Regional Court In Gdansk Poland

A European arrest warrant must give a sufficient description of the alleged conduct, including its time and place and the requested person’s degree of participation. Precise details of every act are unnecessary, particularly for conspiracy allegations, but a bare assertion that the person conspired with others will ordinarily be insufficient.

The warrant must be read as a whole. Connected charges may provide the necessary detail when considered together. Compliance with Extradition Act 2003 section 2(4)(c) must, however, be established from the warrant itself. Further information cannot cure an insufficient description for that purpose.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Snow’s order of 10 September 2012 for his extradition to Poland. The European arrest warrant contained six allegations of laundering proceeds derived from trafficking cannabis from Holland to the United Kingdom and one allegation of transporting cannabis.

The appellant contended that the warrant failed to comply with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issue was whether the seven charges, read together, adequately described his conduct and degree of participation. The court also considered whether further information supplied by the requesting authority could remedy any deficiency in the warrant.

1. The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s discharge was directed. Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, implementing article 8 of the Council Framework Decision, required the warrant to describe the alleged conduct, its time and place, and the requested person’s degree of participation. The description had to give the person an idea of the nature and extent of the allegations while respecting the objective of simplified extradition procedures. Where dual criminality arose, it also had to permit the necessary transposition exercise: [2007] EWHC 2316 (Admin) applied.

2. The warrant did not need to specify the precise nature of the requested person’s involvement. Nor did an allegation of conspiracy require extensive particulars of every act committed in furtherance of it. It should nevertheless indicate briefly the conduct said to constitute the person’s participation. Merely alleging that the person conspired with others to achieve the criminal result would ordinarily be insufficient.

3. A warrant containing several charges must be considered as a whole. Related charges may be read together, particularly where they describe a course of conduct or acts potentially undertaken in furtherance of a conspiracy: [2012] EWHC 722 Admin applied. In this case, however, material differences between the locations, periods and conduct alleged in charges 1–4, charge 5, charge 6 and charge 7 meant that they could not clearly be treated as one conspiracy. The warrant failed to identify the appellant’s principal alleged role with sufficient clarity.

4. Further information suggested that the appellant received sterling proceeds from drug sales and passed them to collaborators for conversion into euros and the purchase of further cannabis. A short account of that nature would have satisfied the requirement. It was absent from the warrant. Further information could not be used to decide whether the warrant itself complied with section 2(4)(c).

5. The defect therefore required discharge even though it was readily curable and the result involved some artificiality. The requesting authority remained free to issue a fresh warrant containing the necessary information. The appellant was awarded costs from central funds.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed and the District Judge’s extradition order was set aside. The appellant’s discharge was directed.

2. District Judge: On 10 September 2012, District Judge Snow ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland to face seven offences.