Goluchowski v District Court in Elblag, Poland

A European arrest warrant issued to execute a sentence need not identify domestic summonses or arrest warrants issued merely to enforce an already enforceable judgment. Such measures are not warrants requiring particulars under section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Where a suspended sentence has been activated, or conditional release revoked, omission of the full judicial history from the warrant is not necessarily fatal. Supplementary information may establish that the warrant rests on an enforceable judgment. Section 202 permits formal defects to be regularised consistently with article 15 of the Framework Decision. The general rule that prescribed particulars are taken at face value is not absolute: surrender cannot properly follow if further information fundamentally undermines the asserted judicial basis.

Goluchowski v District Court in Elblag, Poland concerned two sentences which had initially been suspended and were later activated. The companion appeal concerning Sas involved one sentence which became enforceable after an unsuccessful appeal and another for which conditional early release was revoked. Domestic summonses, orders or warrants were issued after the appellants failed to report to prison.

The appellants appealed from High Court decisions reported at [2015] EWHC 332 (Admin) and [2015] EWHC 648 (Admin). The central questions were whether section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 required the European arrest warrants to particularise domestic enforcement warrants or decisions activating the sentences, and whether supplementary information could establish the warrants’ validity.

1. The appeals were dismissed unanimously. Lord Mance delivered the judgment with which Lord Neuberger, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson agreed. The High Court judgments were affirmed.

2. In a conviction case, section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 does not require particulars of domestic summonses, orders or arrest warrants issued merely to secure compliance with an already enforceable sentence. Article 8.1(c) of the Framework Decision provides alternative possible judicial foundations for a European arrest warrant. An enforceable judgment may itself supply the necessary foundation. A domestic arrest warrant is not invariably required. Sas's first warrant was therefore valid because it identified the original and appellate judgments which made his sentence enforceable. The domestic enforcement measures taken after he failed to report to prison were irrelevant.

3. The same reasoning applied to Goluchowski's activated suspended sentences and the sentence covered by Sas's third warrant. Once the relevant activation or revocation decisions had taken effect, each man was required to attend prison without more. Later domestic measures intended to secure attendance neither formed the basis of the European arrest warrants nor required mention under section 2(6)(c).

4. Applying Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Bob-Dogi (Case C-241/15; EU:C:2016:385), a failure fully or accurately to evidence the national judicial foundation on the face of a warrant is not necessarily fatal. The executing authority must consider supplementary information obtained under article 15. That information may establish that the warrant rests on an enforceable judgment. The court left open whether decisions activating suspended sentences or revoking conditional release should strictly have been identified alongside the original judgments.

5. Section 202 of the Extradition Act 2003 must be read consistently with article 15 as permitting cooperation and the regularisation of formal, rather than substantive, deficiencies. The categorical language in Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain ([2007] UKHL 6) that missing section 2 statements could not be supplemented by extraneous information had to be qualified accordingly.

6. The warrants also contained the prescribed particulars on their face. Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland ([2013] UKSC 2) establishes a general face-value rule, but not an absolute one. Further information cannot be ignored where it fundamentally undermines the asserted judicial basis. Here it instead confirmed that every warrant rested on enforceable court decisions. Lord Neuberger gave a short concurring judgment confirming that this limited understanding was consistent with Zakrzewski.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court — In [2016] UKSC 36, the court unanimously dismissed the appeals and affirmed both High Court judgments.
2. High Court, Administrative Court — The decisions at [2015] EWHC 332 (Admin) and [2015] EWHC 648 (Admin) were appealed. Each court certified a question concerning the information required in a conviction European arrest warrant under section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.