Goluchowski v District Court in Elblag Poland

On an appeal against extradition, new evidence engaging Convention rights is not automatically admitted. The appellant must explain why it was not produced below, identify changes making it more compelling, and show that admission would be just.

For a conviction European Arrest Warrant, section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars of the domestic warrant on which the European Arrest Warrant is based. It does not require particulars of every later domestic warrant concerned with securing surrender to serve an already imposed sentence. The warrant must identify the legal foundation for its issue, but need not state that a sentence initially suspended was later activated where the conviction and sentence forming the foundation are stated.

The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The District Judge ordered extradition on 21 November 2014 after rejecting arguments that the warrant failed to comply with section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 and that extradition would unjustifiably interfere with family life.

On appeal, the appellant sought to rely on late medical evidence concerning his mother and requested an adjournment. He ultimately pursued only the statutory challenge. The central issue was whether the warrant was invalid because it did not identify domestic warrants issued after activation of suspended sentences and in connection with securing the appellant’s imprisonment.

Appeal dismissed.

1. Late evidence. The proposed evidence about the appellant’s mother was refused. Although the extended discretion applicable where Convention rights are engaged may permit new evidence, an appellant relying on such evidence for the first time on appeal must explain why it was not adduced below, show what changes make it more compelling, and establish that admission would be just. Those requirements were not met. The evidence was also insufficiently tested and did not establish the claimed extent of the appellant’s relationship with, or care for, his mother.
2. Construction of section 2(6)(c). Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision identifies alternative forms of enforceable judicial decision. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 does not transpose that provision precisely. Read with Louca v Public Prosecutor, Bielefeld, Germany [2009] 1 WLR 2550, section 2(6)(c) is directed to particulars of a domestic warrant on which the European Arrest Warrant is based, rather than to every domestic warrant issued in respect of the offence.
3. Legal foundation. The relevant question is whether the omitted domestic warrant was a legal foundation for issuing the European Arrest Warrant under Polish law. The principle stated in Artola v Spain [2013] EWHC 524 (Admin) requires the warrant to identify the jurisdictional fact recognised by the issuing state as the proper foundation for its issue. No evidence established that Polish law required the later domestic warrants to be issued before this European Arrest Warrant could be issued.
4. Conviction warrants and suspended sentences. The approach in Poland v Wojciechowski [2014] EWHC 4162 (Admin) applied with equal force where the European Arrest Warrant did not describe the activation process. The later warrants were administrative measures securing surrender to serve sentences already imposed, not warrants issued in respect of the offences or the juridical basis of the European Arrest Warrant. Consistently with Kamil Bulkowski v Regional Court of Elblag Poland [2012] EWHC 381 (Admin), it was sufficient to state the conviction and sentence. The warrant therefore complied with section 2(6).

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The court refused admission of the late evidence and upheld the District Judge’s conclusion that the European Arrest Warrant complied with section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• District Judge Purdy: On 21 November 2014, extradition was ordered after a contested hearing.