Sesinova v District Court in Most, Czech Republic

In extradition proceedings, a court assessing whether a European Arrest Warrant complies with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 may consider all admissible evidence properly before it. This includes further information and another warrant, even where that evidence was adduced by the appellant for a different purpose. Once evidence is admitted, its significance is for the tribunal to determine. The tribunal must assess compliance in the light of the evidence as a whole and cannot ignore evidence which arguably undermines the warrant’s apparent meaning. A warrant may therefore satisfy section 2 when read together with admissible extrinsic evidence supplying the necessary particulars.

This was an appeal against District Judge Snow’s decision of 5 May 2017 ordering the appellant’s extradition to the Czech Republic under a European Arrest Warrant. The appeal concerned only whether the warrant complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The warrant referred to an aggregate three-year sentence and described drug offences. An earlier warrant concerned theft offences and had been withdrawn after the Czech court revoked the earlier sentence when imposing the aggregate sentence. Further information from the Czech authorities arguably suggested that the three-year sentence related to both groups of offences. The central issue was whether the District Judge could consider the earlier warrant and further information when determining section 2 compliance.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s conclusion that the European Arrest Warrant complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 was correct, although his reasoning was not upheld.
2. Under section 202 of the Act, the European Arrest Warrant, the earlier warrant and the letter of 19 April 2017 were capable of being admitted in evidence. The statutory wording did not limit admissible evidence to material adduced by or on behalf of the issuing judicial authority.
3. As a general principle of English law, once evidence has been properly admitted, the tribunal must determine its significance. The party who adduced it cannot confine the tribunal’s consideration to the purpose for which it was introduced. The reasoning in Goluchowski v Poland [2016] 1 WLR 2665 did not alter that principle.
4. The District Judge was entitled to consider the warrant in the light of both the further information and the earlier warrant. Having admitted the further information, he could not ignore it merely because the warrant appeared clear when read on its own. The question was whether section 2 was satisfied on all the evidence properly before him.
5. On that assessment, the necessary particulars were available and the warrant complied with section 2. It was unnecessary to consider Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law & Others [2016] EWHC 124 (Admin) or Brodziak v Poland [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin), since any views on those alternative routes would have been obiter.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against District Judge Snow’s decision of 5 May 2017 dismissed. The extradition order was upheld.