Powierza v District Court, Warszawa, Poland

In an extradition under the European arrest warrant scheme, the executing court should ordinarily accept a statement by the requesting state’s judicial authority that the requested person was convicted by a court in that state. It is rarely appropriate to investigate the internal constitution of that court. Extradition may nevertheless be refused in an exceptional case involving a flagrant denial of justice. A conviction by a Polish tribunal involving an assessor did not meet that threshold, particularly in light of the European Court of Human Rights’ treatment of legal certainty and the remedial measures adopted in Poland. For a conviction warrant involving a suspended sentence, recording the original sentence, its suspension, and its subsequent activation will ordinarily satisfy the requirements of section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, especially where the activation decision is identified by date and place.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland under a conviction warrant issued on 3 December 2009. He had been convicted in 2004 of assaulting a police officer and using threatening behaviour, and was required to serve the outstanding part of a sentence originally suspended for five years.

He argued that the conviction was not by a court for the purposes of section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, because an assessor had participated in the Polish tribunal. Alternatively, he relied on Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and contended that the warrant lacked sufficient information about the circumstances in which the suspended sentence was activated. District Judge Coleman had rejected those arguments and ordered extradition. The central issues were whether the warrant satisfied section 2 and whether return would involve a flagrant denial of justice.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant satisfied section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and extradition was compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights.
2. The statutory question was whether the European arrest warrant contained the required statement that the appellant had been convicted of the specified offence by a court in the category 1 territory. The Polish judicial authority had made or validated that statement. In the context of mutual recognition and trust between judicial authorities, it was ordinarily unnecessary for the English court to investigate the internal workings of the requesting state’s judicial system. It was difficult to envisage circumstances in which such a statement should be questioned, although the court did not hold that it lacked jurisdiction to do so in every conceivable case.
3. Even if the court examined whether return would involve a flagrant denial of justice, the participation of an assessor did not satisfy that exceptional threshold. The reasoning in Wisniewski v Regional Court in Elbag, Poland was correct. The decision in Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v Poland showed that the constitutional defect concerning assessors did not automatically invalidate individual convictions or require the reopening of past proceedings. Legal certainty had significant weight, and the defect had been remedied by legislative action.
4. The warrant adequately recorded the original two-year sentence, its suspension, and the later order activating it. The degree of particularisation required under section 2 depended on the facts. Ordinarily, where the date and location of the activation decision were given, it was unnecessary to state precisely why the suspension had been activated. The approach in Kaminski v A Judicial Authority in Poland was adopted.
5. The appellant’s arguments under Articles 5 and 13 did not alter the conclusion. Any challenge to the factual basis for activation was more appropriately investigated in Poland, the jurisdiction best placed to determine it.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Coleman ordered the appellant’s extradition on 22 August 2012 and rejected the arguments concerning the assessor, Convention rights and the sufficiency of the warrant.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.