Jankowski v District Court Wroclaw (Poland)

In an extradition case, the requesting state must provide evidence sufficient to establish that the conduct described in a European Arrest Warrant is an extradition offence. A court may seek further information to clarify an ambiguity, but it must not fill an evidential gap by transferring factual findings proved in another case. Facts established in one case cannot ordinarily be judicially noticed in another. Where clarification was requested and the judicial authority failed to provide it, the absence of evidence requires discharge rather than speculation or extrapolation.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Snow’s decision at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 1 September 2015 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a conviction for driving with excess alcohol and sought his return to serve the balance of a sentence.

The issue was whether the conduct described in the warrant constituted an extradition offence under sections 10 and 65 of the Extradition Act 2003. The warrant referred to a blood-alcohol reading of 2.5 per mille, but the requesting authority did not explain how that figure converted into the domestic statutory measurement.

1. Appeal allowed. The extradition order was quashed and the claimant was discharged under section 26(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. For a category 1 territory, section 10(2) required the judge to decide whether the conduct specified in the warrant was an extradition offence. Under section 65(3)(b), the conduct had to constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom.
3. The domestic comparison required evidence that the alcohol concentration reached the statutory threshold in section 11(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The requesting authority had been given an opportunity to clarify the meaning of 2.5 per mille, but its response did not provide the necessary conversion.
4. The court could request further information to clarify an ambiguity, as explained in Dabas v Spain [2007] UKHL 6. It could not use factual findings made in Grabowski v Regional Court of Wloclawek, Poland [2014] EWHC 3602 (Admin) to supply missing evidence in this separate case.
5. The principle stated by Lord Wright in Lazard Brothers & Co v Midland Bank [1933] AC 289, that proof of a fact in one case does not permit judicial notice of it in another, applied. The court disagreed with the approach taken in Jaroszynski v Polish Judicial Authority [2015] EWHC 335 (Admin).
6. A late application for an adjournment to obtain confirmation from Poland was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Snow’s decision at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 1 September 2015 was allowed. The extradition order was quashed and the claimant was discharged.