Glowinski v Regional Court in Opole Poland

A European Arrest Warrant is ineffective where it omits information required by the Extradition Act 2003 or the Framework Decision, even if the omission might otherwise be regarded as technical. In a conviction case, the relevant decision is the enforceable judgment which triggered the warrant and the sentence to be served. The court must distinguish between an original suspended sentence and a later appellate decision which makes imprisonment absolute. Extradition may also be refused in a rare case where substantial, unexplained delay combines with the individual’s settled circumstances and the passage of time to make surrender disproportionate under Article 8.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence for supplying cannabis, including to two minors. The offences occurred between 1998 and 2000. The Polish warrant referred to the original 2004 suspended sentence, although the Court of Appeal in Wroclaw later removed the suspension and imposed absolute imprisonment. Further information was admitted on appeal. The issues were whether the warrant sufficiently identified the enforceable decision and whether the delay, together with the appellant’s circumstances, made extradition incompatible with Article 8.

1. The appeal was allowed and the District Judge’s extradition order was quashed. The ancillary costs order also fell away.

2. Section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a conviction-case warrant to contain particulars of any other warrant issued in the requesting territory for the person’s arrest in respect of the offence. Read with Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision, the relevant decision is the enforceable judgment, arrest warrant or equivalent judicial decision which led to the warrant and required the sentence to be served.

3. The reasoning in Regional Court in Tarnow Poland v Wojciechowski [2014] EWHC 4162 (Admin), concerning a warrant which referred to an original suspended sentence later activated, did not govern this case. Here, the effective sentence resulted from the appellate court’s decision removing the suspension. The warrant therefore omitted information going to the jurisdiction of the extradition court.

4. A defect in a warrant may be technical in some cases, but the statutory and Framework Decision requirements protect individual liberty and must be complied with.

5. The delay was exceptionally substantial. It included unexplained delay before 2006 and more than seven years after the appellant became a fugitive. Although he contributed to part of the delay, he had served about seven months, had lived and worked consistently in the United Kingdom for over eight years, had no adverse conduct here, and had outgrown the offending. The combination of the warrant defect and lapse of time made this a rare case in which extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the District Judge’s order and quashed the extradition decision.
• District Judge: on 2 December 2014 ordered extradition to Poland.