Ulatowski v Gorzow WLKP Circuit Court, Poland

Particulars in a European arrest warrant satisfy section 2(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 where they identify the alleged conduct, time and place sufficiently to enable the requested person to understand the accusation and formulate any extradition defence. The warrant must permit the reasonable inference that the conduct occurred, at least in part, in the issuing territory where that is required for jurisdiction. An agreement formed in that territory to participate in a criminal organisation or traffic drugs internationally may constitute conduct committed there, even before the organisation carries out its intended unlawful purpose.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 27 June 2014 ordering his return to Poland under a European arrest warrant concerning participation in an organised criminal group and international drug trafficking.

He argued that the warrant lacked the particulars required by section 2(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition would be disproportionate under article 8 because he was the principal carer of two children. Developments concerning the children’s care made the article 8 position uncertain. The court therefore determined the statutory particulars issue and adjourned the article 8 issue.

1. Section 2(4) challenge. The particulars required by section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 must appear in the warrant itself. They must identify the alleged conduct, time and place sufficiently clearly to enable the requested person to understand the accusation and articulate any defence to extradition.
2. The relevant question was whether the warrant indicated that at least part of the conduct occurred in Poland, as required for a framework offence under section 64(2)(a), or under the dual criminality route in section 64(3). The correct approach was whether the only reasonable inference from the wording was that the alleged conduct constituted an offence in Poland.
3. The warrant referred to June 2009 and Gorzow and other towns in Poland in describing the alleged conduct. The reasonable and sufficient inference was that the agreements to participate in the criminal organisation and to traffic drugs internationally were formed there. Forming those agreements in Poland was sufficient criminal conduct in Poland, even before the unlawful purposes were carried out.
4. The alternative suggestion that the reference to Poland merely identified the origin of one or more conspirators was not a reasonable interpretation. The particulars were therefore sufficient, and the appeal was dismissed on that ground.
5. Article 8 issue. The children’s care arrangements had materially changed and required clarification. The court adjourned that issue for further enquiries, including whether the local authority would resume its proposal to foster the children together in Wellingborough. The court directed an initial period of 28 days, with an update after 21 days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Coleman’s decision of 27 June 2014 ordering return to Poland was challenged. The statutory particulars ground was dismissed. The article 8 issue was adjourned for further enquiries.