Zmyslowski v Regional Court In Lublin, Poland

For extradition purposes, separate European Arrest Warrants are treated as separate warrants where each has been issued as a distinct document by a judicial authority, even if the requesting state regards them as a modification of the same warrant. Discharge of one warrant does not prevent extradition on another valid warrant.

The implied abuse of process jurisdiction is exceptional. It requires a usurpation of the statutory extradition regime causing unfairness or injustice, or unfair prejudice in the United Kingdom or the requesting state. Confusion or procedural irregularity without such prejudice is insufficient.

The case concerned an appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court and an application for habeas corpus. The appellant had initially been arrested under a European Arrest Warrant which misstated the maximum sentences for four of six offences. A second warrant, containing corrected particulars, was issued and certified before the extradition hearing.

The District Judge discharged the appellant under the first warrant and ordered extradition under the second. The appellant argued that there was only one warrant, that the District Judge therefore lacked jurisdiction, and that the circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. He also claimed that his detention was unlawful.

1. Appeal dismissed and habeas corpus refused. The District Judge was entitled, and required, to proceed on the second European Arrest Warrant.
2. Under sections 2 and 10 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question was whether the appellant was before the court in respect of a valid Part 1 warrant. The first and second warrants were distinct for the purposes of the English statutory scheme. They were signed by different judges on different dates, and the second warrant had been separately certified. The first warrant had been disposed of by discharge; the second had not.
3. The second warrant satisfied the statutory requirements, including the particulars of the maximum sentences. The District Judge therefore had jurisdiction to proceed under section 10 and the following provisions.
4. The court accepted that an abuse of process jurisdiction exists in extradition proceedings. Following Belbin v Regional Court at Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin), the jurisdiction is engaged only where the statutory regime has been usurped and the usurpation makes extradition unfair or unjust, or causes unfair prejudice in the United Kingdom or the requesting state.
5. The sequence of events was unfortunate and confusing, but it did not usurp the extradition process. The appellant suffered no prejudice in the extradition proceedings and accepted that he would not be prejudiced in Poland. Any suggested risk of a later arrest on the original warrant was illusory.
6. The detention was authorised by the custody warrant issued by the District Judge. Since the extradition order was valid, the power to remand under section 21A(6) also applied. Habeas corpus therefore did not lie.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the decision of DJ Brennan at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 12 April 2016. The appeal was dismissed and habeas corpus was refused.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge discharged the appellant under the first warrant and ordered extradition under the second warrant.