Gebski v Regional Court in Radom, Poland

Particulars of conviction in a European arrest warrant need not always include the date of conviction. The question is whether the warrant, read as a whole and in the circumstances of the individual case, contains sufficient information to identify the conviction and enable the requested person to understand and respond to the extradition proceedings. In a case involving a cumulative sentence, the date, court and reference number of the cumulative sentencing judgment may provide sufficient particulars, even where separate underlying convictions are not individually detailed.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Bayne at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 28 November 2014 requiring his extradition to Poland. The European arrest warrant concerned five offences and sought his return to serve the balance of a four-year sentence. The appellant argued that the warrant was invalid under section 2(6)(b) of the 2003 Act because it identified only a cumulative sentencing judgment and did not give the dates, courts or reference numbers of the separate convictions.

The central issue was whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars of conviction when read as a whole.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant was section 2 compliant.

2. Particulars of conviction do not invariably require the date of each conviction to be stated. The statutory requirement is assessed in the light of the circumstances of the individual case. Sufficient other information may satisfy the requirement if it enables the facts and circumstances of the conviction to be ascertained.

3. For a warrant based on a cumulative judgment, the date of that judgment, together with the court name and reference number, may be sufficient to establish validity. The relevant question is whether the requested person has enough information to identify the issues requiring a response to the extradition request.

4. Here, the warrant identified the date of the cumulative sentence, the court and the reference number for that decision. The appellant’s proof of evidence also supplied details of both sets of offences and sentences and referred to the earlier aggregation of the sentences. Taken together, the information gave him sufficient particulars to respond to the warrant.

5. The court accepted the approach in Wozniuk v Regional Court in Bialystok [2010] EWHC 3138 (Admin) and the application of that approach to a cumulative judgment in Bader v Penal Division of the Veszprem County Court, Hungary [2011] EWHC 436 (Admin).

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Bayne ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 28 November 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against that order was dismissed.