Straszewski v District Court In Bydogszcz, Poland

An appellate court may admit further evidence in extradition proceedings where the statutory conditions for new evidence on appeal are not met, if the interests of justice require it. The power is not confined to evidence needed to avoid a human-rights breach or to establish foreign law. The Divisional Court may seek further information from the requesting judicial authority, even though it is not the executing judicial authority for the purposes of article 15 of the Framework Decision. Where authenticated further information establishes how a suspended sentence was activated, it may cure an apparent deficiency in the European arrest warrant. The court need not determine an underlying issue left open by the Supreme Court if the further evidence conclusively disposes of the appeal.

The appellant challenged an order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot on 2 September 2016 ordering his extradition to Poland under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003. The European arrest warrant sought his surrender to serve the balance of a sentence originally imposed as suspended. The appellant argued that the warrant failed to particularise the decision activating the suspended sentence and therefore did not comply with section 2(6)(b) or (c).

After the District Judge’s decision, the Regional Court in Bydgoszcz supplied a sealed letter explaining the activation decision, its notification, and the reasons for enforcement. The central issues were whether the Divisional Court could admit that evidence and seek further information under article 15 of the Framework Decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court admitted the letter from the Regional Court in Bydgoszcz and held that it cured any deficiency in the European arrest warrant.
2. Section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 did not apply because the evidence could have been made available at the extradition hearing. Nevertheless, that did not exhaust the court’s power to admit evidence. The court recognised that limits should exist on evidence adduced merely to bolster a decision on appeal, but held that the interests of justice required admission in this case.
3. The Divisional Court might not be the executing authority under article 15 of the Framework Decision. That provision imposes a duty in specified circumstances, but does not limit the circumstances in which courts in the requested state may seek further information. The Divisional Court accordingly had power to seek such information, and that power was not confined to human-rights cases or questions of foreign law.
4. The evidence before the District Judge concerning activation came from an extraneous source and was not receivable under section 202 of the Extradition Act 2003. The later authenticated evidence supplied by the judicial authority provided the necessary information in proper form. Its admission removed the appellant’s complaint about the warrant.
5. The court did not decide whether an enforceable judgment under article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision must itself particularise every decision activating a suspended sentence. The Supreme Court had left that question open in Goluchowski and another v Poland [2016] UKSC 36. The appeal was dismissed because the admitted evidence conclusively ended it.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted by Turner J on 7 December 2016 after refusal on paper by Baker J. The Divisional Court admitted further evidence and dismissed the appeal.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot ordered extradition on 2 September 2016 following a contested hearing on 30 August 2016.