Krzyzoszczak, R (on the application of) v Polish Judicial Authority

An extradition appeal must be determined on the European arrest warrant properly before the court. Where the re-issued warrant contains no apparent inaccuracy and is supported by further information, the court is entitled to act on it. A challenge based on alleged discrepancies in an earlier warrant does not establish a ground for allowing the appeal. Any dispute about the precise period spent on remand may be raised with the requesting state after extradition.

The appellant appealed from an extradition order made on 4 November 2014 by District Judge Zani in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Poland sought his surrender under four European arrest warrants, comprising conviction warrants for outstanding sentences and a prosecution warrant.

The only pleaded ground concerned compatibility with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that ground was not pursued at the hearing. The appellant instead challenged European arrest warrant no. 4, relying on an earlier version which he said recorded a different period of remand custody. The issue was whether the High Court could act on the re-issued warrant and the further information provided by the Polish judicial authority.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant had not pursued the pleaded Article 8 ground.

2. European arrest warrant no. 4, issued on 11 March 2014, was a re-issue of an earlier warrant and concerned possession of ecstasy, and theft and forgery of cheques. It stated that the appellant had received credit for detention on remand from 18 March 2003 to 6 October 2003 and sought his surrender to serve the remaining part of a sentence. The respondent’s further information confirmed the remaining period.

3. The court could act only on the European arrest warrant in its re-issued form. There was no evidence before the court that the matters stated in that warrant were inaccurate. The warrant appeared to have been re-issued after the requesting judicial authority had been asked to provide further information in light of the dates of the alleged offences.

4. The appellant’s assertion that he had been in custody between March 2002 and June 2003 did not provide a ground for allowing the appeal. After extradition, he could raise with the Polish authorities the precise period for which he had been held on remand. The court had no reason to doubt that the Polish judicial authorities would deal with that issue properly and judicially.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani made the extradition order on 4 November 2014.