Golab v Regional Court in Rzeszow (Poland)

For extradition purposes, a warrant satisfies the particularity requirement in Extradition Act section 2 where it identifies the relevant offence with sufficient detail. A failure to state the precise number of stolen items does not invalidate a warrant where the items and the extradition offence are otherwise identified. Time already served in the United Kingdom may justify refusing extradition if it is the only sentence outstanding. It does not prevent extradition where other lawful and longer sentences remain to be served.

Three conviction European Arrest Warrants were issued for the applicant in respect of historic offences and he was arrested in the United Kingdom in June 2017. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court considered whether extradition would be compatible with his human rights and concluded that extradition was proportionate.

On an earlier application for permission to appeal, Mr Justice Julian Knowles considered alleged defects in one warrant concerning the time and location of the offence and the number of stolen items. Permission was refused. On renewal, the applicant also argued that he had already served one sentence in the United Kingdom and that the remaining sentences had been unlawfully activated.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal failed. The District Judge’s order remained in force and extradition was to follow.

2. The alleged defects in the warrant did not breach the particularity required by section 2 of the Extradition Act. The warrant specified the relevant period and location. It identified the stolen property as bicycles, which constituted an extradition offence. A precise number of items was not required.

3. Time already served in the United Kingdom would be credited in Poland. If that were the only sentence outstanding, it would provide a good reason not to extradite. That was not the position because longer sentences remained outstanding.

4. The argument that the remaining sentences had been activated outside the suspension period had not previously been raised and provided no basis on the papers for avoiding extradition. Even if the challenge to the warrant concerning the shorter sentence had succeeded, it would not have affected extradition on the other sentences.

5. The applicant’s absence from the hearing did not cause prejudice. The court found no apparent defect in the warrants or obvious error by the District Judge requiring an adjournment.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge concluded that extradition was proportionate and made the extradition order.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Julian Knowles refused permission to appeal on the merits of the alleged section 2 defects in one warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On renewal, Mr Justice William Davis refused permission to appeal and confirmed that extradition would follow.