Regional Court in Tarnow Poland v Wojciechowski

For an extradition warrant to qualify under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, it must contain the particulars that establish its jurisdictional foundation. In a conviction case, that foundation may be the enforceable judgment imposing the sentence. Later domestic arrest warrants issued to secure surrender for sentence need not be included where they do not provide the legal basis for the European Arrest Warrant. The court examines whether the prescribed particulars are stated in the warrant itself. Extraneous information cannot cure an omission of necessary particulars, although mutual trust between requesting and executing states remains an important principle.

A Polish court issued a European Arrest Warrant concerning aggregate custodial sentences imposed on the respondent. The warrant identified the relevant judgments and remaining sentences, but did not mention two domestic arrest warrants issued after the judgments when the respondent failed to surrender to custody.

The Westminster Magistrates’ Court held that the omission breached section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 and ordered the respondent’s discharge. The requesting court appealed, arguing that the domestic warrants were immaterial because the EAW was founded on the enforceable judgments. The central issue was whether the post-judgment arrest warrants formed part of the particulars required to establish the EAW’s jurisdictional basis.

1. The appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the magistrates’ court with a direction to proceed in accordance with the judgment.
2. Section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory where that warrant provides the jurisdictional foundation for the EAW. The relevant question is whether the totality of the information in the EAW satisfies the statutory requirement, applying the approach in Artola v The 6th Section of the National High Court of Madrid, Spain [2013] EWHC 524 (Admin).
3. The court applied Louca v Germany [2009] UKSC 4, under which “any other warrant” refers to a domestic arrest warrant or other decision forming the foundation for issuing the EAW, rather than a previously issued EAW. The domestic warrants in this case were issued after the enforceable judgments and merely sought to secure the respondent’s surrender to custody. They were not the basis on which the EAW was issued.
4. The warrant clearly identified the aggregate judgments, the sentences and the remaining periods of imprisonment. It also explained that the respondent was sought to serve those sentences. Those particulars established the warrant’s legal foundation, so the omission of the later domestic warrants did not invalidate it.
5. The court distinguished the circumstances considered in Zakrzewski v Regional Court of Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2. That case concerned information which had become inaccurate after issue, whereas the present case concerned an alleged omission. The mutual-trust principle remained relevant, but the assistance available from that decision was limited.
6. The reasoning in Przybysz v Poland [2014] EWHC 1240 (Admin) was consistent with treating a domestic warrant as immaterial where it did not provide the justification for the EAW.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the discharge decision was allowed and the case was remitted with directions.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Deputy Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot held the EAW defective under section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 and ordered the respondent’s discharge.