Murin v District Court In Prague (Czech Republic)

A European arrest warrant may validly seek a convicted person’s return for a hearing deciding whether to activate a previously suspended custodial sentence. Extradition Act 2003 s 2(5)(b) covers both sentencing and serving a sentence, and does not create an intermediate gap for conditional sentences awaiting activation. The provision must be construed purposively and consistently with the Framework Decision’s objectives of mutual recognition and effective surrender. The requesting state’s categorisation of the warrant as a conviction warrant should ordinarily be accepted, absent a very strong reason to reject it. The concept of being unlawfully at large in s 68A and authorities concerning passage of time under s 14 do not qualify s 2(5)(b).

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to the Czech Republic under a European arrest warrant. He had been convicted of theft offences and given a two-year custodial sentence suspended for four years. During the suspension period he allegedly committed a further offence, and the Czech authority sought his return to attend a hearing deciding whether the suspended sentence should be activated.

The District Judge held that the warrant was a valid conviction warrant under s 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appeal concerned whether the proposed hearing fell within s 2(5)(b), which refers to extradition for the purpose of being sentenced or serving a sentence of imprisonment or other detention.

Appeal dismissed. The European arrest warrant was valid under s 2(5)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Section 2(5)(b) covers extradition to attend a hearing deciding whether to activate the custodial element of an existing conditional or suspended sentence. The statutory scheme is intended to provide a seamless mechanism for returning persons sought for trial or to serve sentences. It does not leave an intermediate category of non-activated suspended sentences outside the regime.
2. The same conclusion followed from Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. Its purpose is to establish a simplified and effective surrender system based on mutual recognition, covering pre-sentence and final decisions. Neither its scope provisions nor the information requirements for an arrest warrant creates an exception for hearings concerning activation of suspended sentences.
3. The court applied the purposive approach in Goluchowski v Poland [2016] UKSC 36. A distinction between return directly to prison and return for a hearing did not alter the principle. Excluding a hearing where the requested person could make submissions would create a perverse incentive to limit defence rights.
4. The reasoning in Ardic, Case C-571/17 PPU, Tupikas, Case C-270/17 PPU, Zdziaszek, Case C-271/17 PPU, and Imre v District Court in Szolnok, Hungary supported an effective and rights-consistent operation of the scheme. Those authorities did not suggest that a right to be heard on activation of a suspended sentence disapplied the EAW system.
5. Following Istanek v District Court of Prerov [2011] EWHC 1498 (Admin), the warrant should be categorised according to the requesting state’s procedures and laws. Although the court might exceptionally question that categorisation, a very strong reason was required. None existed here.
6. The references to “unlawfully at large” in s 68A, and to passage of time under s 14, did not bear on the construction of s 2(5)(b). The appeal was dismissed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Inyundo ordered the appellant’s extradition on 30 November 2017.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order upheld.