Krawczyk v Court In Kielce Poland

A conviction European Arrest Warrant satisfies section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 where it gives sufficient details of the underlying offences to enable the requested person to understand the convictions and sentences and to consider whether any bar to extradition applies.

The required particularity is fact-sensitive. The warrant need not state precise dates where the offences are otherwise intelligible. A later argument based on possible early release in the requesting state does not justify refusing extradition where it was not properly raised, supported by evidence or made a ground of appeal.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Devas on 30 December 2013 directing his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant related to suspended sentences of 10 months and eight months, later activated, for drug offences and criminal damage.

Before the District Judge, the appellant argued that the warrant failed to provide the information required by section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003. He also relied unsuccessfully on other statutory and human-rights grounds. On appeal, only the section 2(6) argument was pursued initially. A further argument based on the possibility of early release in Poland was raised later. The central issue was whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars of the convictions and underlying offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant contained sufficient particulars for section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The court adopted the approach in Sandi v Craiovia Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin). The required level of detail in a conviction warrant depends on the circumstances. The warrant must ordinarily provide enough information about the number and broad circumstances of the offences, including when and where they occurred and the requested person’s participation, to enable the person to understand the convictions and sentences and to consider any possible bar to extradition. No fixed formula applies.
3. The phrase in the warrant referring to a closely unidentified date was clumsy but intelligible. It meant that the date or dates were unknown. The amphetamine allegation could reasonably be understood as one conviction covering 20 occasions of possession, in the identified locality, involving quantities of approximately 0.5 or 1 gram. The warrant also adequately described the supply of marijuana to one person on an unknown date in the summer of 2004. The information therefore satisfied section 2(6)(b).
4. The appellant’s further contention that extradition would be disproportionate because he might obtain early release in Poland provided no basis for allowing the appeal. The point was not a ground of appeal, was unsupported by evidence and had been available at the hearing. The possibility of an application for early release did not determine the proportionality issue. The consequences of any such application were matters for the Polish court.
5. The court referred to Janaszek v Circuit Court Poland [2013] EWHC 1880 (Admin), which described the Polish early-release scheme and its relevant factors. The appellant remained free to apply to the Polish court, but the application might be rejected, granted in full or granted for part of the remaining sentence.
6. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s publicly funded costs were subject to detailed assessment, with no other order as to costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The court upheld the District Judge’s conclusion that the European Arrest Warrant complied with section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003.