Ulaszonek v Polish Judicial Authority

An appellate court may permit a European arrest warrant to be amended, including by narrowing the offences for which extradition is sought. The amendment may be treated as further information rather than as a new warrant. Under the Extradition Act (Multiple Offences) Order 2003, an extradition order operates separately in respect of each offence. The appeal court may therefore quash the order for offences removed from the warrant while allowing extradition to proceed for the remaining offences. An appellant has no right to have the entire extradition order quashed or proceedings recommenced merely because the warrant has been amended.

The appellant appealed against an extradition order made by District Judge Baraitser in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 February 2018. The original European arrest warrant sought extradition for one accusation and five conviction matters. After the order, the Polish authorities removed four convictions from the warrant and issued an altered version, stating that it was an amendment rather than a replacement.

Permission to appeal was granted on a ground under section 2(6)(e) of the Act concerning the effect of the altered warrant. The central issues were whether a European arrest warrant could lawfully be amended and whether the amendment required the extradition order to be quashed in full.

1. The appeal was allowed only in relation to the four convictions removed from the warrant and was otherwise dismissed. The extradition order therefore remained effective for the accusation and the remaining conviction.

2. A judicial authority may in principle amend a European arrest warrant. The altered warrant could constitute further information under Article 15 of the Framework Decision. Budai v Hungary Judicial Authority [2017] EWHC 229 (Admin) supported that conclusion.

3. The material issue was not whether amendment was permissible, but whether the existing extradition order could continue to support extradition after four of the convictions on which it was based had been removed. The amendment substantially narrowed, but did not invalidate, the warrant.

4. Following the approach in Lewicki v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy [2018] EWHC 1160 (Admin), the court could give effect to the changed position by allowing the appeal in part. The Extradition Act (Multiple Offences) Order 2003 requires references to an offence in the Act to be read as references to offences in the plural, so that extradition may be ordered separately and severally for each offence.

5. The appellant’s proposed binary choice was rejected. Sections 27(4) and 27(5) permitted the court to quash the extradition order only for offences no longer pursued and to dismiss the appeal in all other respects. No separate Article 8 or other bar to extradition was advanced.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court order was allowed only in relation to four convictions removed from the European arrest warrant and was otherwise dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Baraitser ordered extradition on 20 February 2018.