Jaworski v Germany

An extradition warrant complies with section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 where, read as a whole, it gives sufficient particulars to identify the convicted person’s conduct, the offences, and the relevant dates and places. The warrant need not identify the precise location of every offence where the surrounding particulars adequately identify the offending and the offences occurred within the requesting state. The court assesses the information practically and as a whole, rather than requiring intricate analysis of isolated passages.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Germany under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted following a trial and was sought to serve a sentence of three years and three months, less time spent on remand.

The sole ground was that the warrant failed to comply with section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 because it did not give sufficient particulars of the conviction. The appellant challenged the description of several groups of shoplifting offences, an alleged conspiracy and a fraud by misrepresentation.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had reached the correct conclusion, although he had referred erroneously to section 2(4)(c) rather than section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. The warrant had to be read as a whole. Its opening sentences were descriptive, while the following sentences supplied further particulars. The warrant identified the appellant as one of the defendants and described his participation in the offending.

3. The particulars were sufficient for the offences committed on 11 February 2012: the conduct, stolen property, date and place were identified. The warrant also sufficiently described the later groups of offending, including the periods, the appellant’s role in directing others, the number and nature of the offences, and the relevant German cities.

4. There was no requirement to identify the specific location of each offence. The offences occurred in Germany, and the information enabled the appellant to understand the conduct of which he had been convicted. His presence at trial and the aggregated sentence were also relevant contextual matters.

5. The legal principles governing warrant validity were not in issue. The court therefore rejected the submission that the warrant required the intricate analysis advanced on the appellant’s behalf.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s order was dismissed.
• District Judge: On 12 February 2015, ordered extradition to Germany under a conviction European Arrest Warrant.