Borowski v District Court In Bielsko-Biala Poland

An overlap between European arrest warrants does not invalidate a warrant where the issuing authority genuinely intends, when extradition is sought and obtained, to prosecute the offences specified. The position differs where separate warrants charge identical offences and would expose the requested person to duplicated liability. A warrant remains valid even if circumstances later mean that prosecution does not occur. Internal arrangements between prosecuting authorities, including arrangements under which wider charges subsume narrower ones, do not themselves invalidate extradition where the requested person will be prosecuted for the charged offences.

The appellant challenged his extradition to Poland under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003. District Judge Coleman had directed his return to face charges concerning a red diesel VAT fraud and related money laundering.

A separate earlier European arrest warrant concerned one transaction forming part of the wider conduct alleged in the later warrant. The Polish prosecuting authorities subsequently agreed to combine the proceedings, with the Bielsko-Biala authority taking responsibility. The issue was whether the overlap between the warrants invalidated the later warrant or made the extradition process abusive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The extradition was correct.

2. The validity of a European arrest warrant depends on whether, when extradition is sought and up to the point it is obtained, the issuing prosecuting authority intends that the requested person should be prosecuted for the offences specified in the warrant. Later events may mean that prosecution does not occur, for example because the evidence proves unreliable, but that later development does not retrospectively invalidate the warrant if the requisite intention existed when extradition was sought.

3. The overlap here was materially different from the circumstances considered in Voros v The District Courts in Hungary [2012] EWHC 518 (Admin) and the subsequent decision [2012] EWHC 1079 (Admin). Those decisions concerned warrants charging identical offences and required the charges to be reduced so that the requested person was extradited only for independent offences. Here, the earlier warrant concerned one incident, while the later warrant alleged wider criminal conduct and relied on wider evidence, including for the money laundering charge.

4. Where separate prosecuting authorities later agree to combine proceedings, the identity of the court or authority ultimately prosecuting is an internal matter, provided that there remains a real intention to prosecute the offences charged. The arrangements made by the Polish authorities to avoid unfairness to the appellant therefore could not invalidate the warrant.

5. The warrant requirement described in section 23 (b) of the Extradition Act 2003 was satisfied because the warrant stated that extradition was sought for the purpose of prosecution for the specified offences. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• District Judge Coleman: directed the appellant’s return to Poland on 19 November 2012.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.