Zawadzki v Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland

In extradition proceedings under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, a European Arrest Warrant must provide the particulars required by section 2(6) only in relation to the offence for which extradition is sought. It need not state the stage reached in proceedings for a separate offence which merely justified activation of a suspended sentence. The speciality rule protects the requested person against being dealt with in the requesting state for that separate offence, subject to the statutory exceptions. A passage-of-time objection is weakened where the requested person became unlawfully at large through his own conduct. Article 3 and Article 8 objections require sufficiently clear and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption that another member state provides adequate safeguards.

Two appeals were brought against orders of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing the appellant’s extradition to Poland under two conviction warrants. The first warrant concerned a sentence activated after the appellant had committed an unspecified intentional crime. The second concerned a different activated suspended sentence.

The appellant argued that the first warrant was invalid because it did not explain the procedural stage of the intentional-crime proceedings. In relation to the second warrant, he relied on passage of time and alleged breaches of Articles 3 and 8 arising from earlier prison mistreatment in Poland.

1. EAW1 dismissed. Section 2(6)(b) and section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003 require particulars of the conviction and sentence for the offence for which extradition is sought. They do not require details of a different offence whose commission contributed to the activation of a suspended sentence. The language of those provisions is inconsistent with requiring information about the stage reached in proceedings for that separate offence. This conclusion was supported by Kaminski v A Judicial Authority in Poland [2012] EWHC 280 (Admin) and Powierza v District Court in Warsaw, Poland [2013] EWHC 36 (Admin).
2. The failure to comply with section 2 requirements is fatal to a Part 1 warrant: Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] AC 1 at [28]. That principle did not assist the appellant because the information omitted was not information required by section 2(6).
3. The appellant’s concern that he might be dealt with in Poland for the intentional crime was answered by the speciality arrangements, reflected in section 17(2) and section 17(3) of the Act. He could not be dealt with for that offence unless the statutory conditions were met. The court proceeded on the basis of mutual respect and trust between member states, consistent with Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31 at [4].
4. The approach was consistent with Pieniazek v The Judicial Authority, Provincial Court of Czestochowa, Poland [2012] EWHC 3986 (Admin), where the speciality rule was treated as a complete answer to a similar concern about other sentences.
5. EAW2 dismissed. The passage of time did not make extradition unjust or oppressive under section 14 because the appellant had left Poland without giving his probation officer a UK address, knowing that the sentence had been activated. The lapse of time was therefore attributable to him.
6. The Article 3 and Article 8 objections failed. The evidence of past abuse in a Polish prison was uncorroborated and related to events twelve years earlier. There was no evidence that the alleged persecutors remained in prison or continued to pose a threat. The presumption that member states have adequate safeguards for vulnerable or threatened prisoners was not rebutted by clear and cogent evidence.
7. The appeals were dismissed. There was no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of the appellant’s publicly funded costs.

High Court (Administrative Court): appeals against the extradition orders made by District Judge Zani on 13 August 2012 and District Judge Coleman on 20 February 2013 were dismissed.