Jasek, R (On the Application Of) v Regional Court Szczecin

In extradition proceedings, the statutory time limit for serving a notice of appeal cannot be extended where the requested person is not a British citizen, even if he is an EU national with a permanent right of residence. The distinction recognised for British citizens rests on their common-law right to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. A permanent right of residence under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 does not place an EU national in the same legal position.

A conviction warrant need contain sufficient particulars to enable the requested person sensibly to understand the conviction and sentence and consider any bar to extradition. The required degree of particularity is fact-sensitive. Additional information available to the court may properly be taken into account.

The appellant sought to challenge an order made by District Judge Snow on 22 August 2013 for his extradition to Poland to serve a ten-month sentence for criminal damage. His solicitors filed a notice of appeal within the seven-day period but failed to serve it on the Crown Prosecution Service until 21 days later.

He argued that his permanent right of residence under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 placed him in the same position as a British citizen, so that time could be extended. He also argued that the conviction warrant lacked sufficient particulars under section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. The appeal was dismissed. No appeal was properly before the court because the notice had not been served within the statutory seven-day period.

2. The court followed the approach in Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276: the notice had to be both filed and served within the permitted period, and the court had no power to extend time. The reasoning in Halligen [2012] UKSC 20 was confined to British citizens. Their special position derived from a common-law right to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. A non-British EU national remained an alien for this purpose, notwithstanding a permanent right of residence under Regulation 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

3. The court relied on Lumenica v Albania [2012] EWHC 2589 (Admin), which had rejected the same argument for a Polish national. The court was not satisfied that that decision, or the binding approach in Mucelli, was clearly wrong. The European human-rights authorities concerning aliens, including Maaouia v France [2001] 33 EHRR 42 and Mamatkulov v Turkey [2005] 41 EHRR 494, supported the distinction.

4. The alternative challenge under section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 also failed. Applying the fact-sensitive approach in Sandi v Craiova Court Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin), a conviction warrant need not contain the same detail as an accusation warrant. The warrant identified the convictions, the offence, the location and nature of the damage, the victim, and the sentence. Taken with the further information before the district judge, it enabled the appellant to understand the offending and raise any available challenge.

• District Judge Snow ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 22 August 2013.
• High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the attempted appeal because the notice had not been served within the statutory period and rejected the alternative warrant challenge.