Litwinczuk v The Circuit Court In Szczecin, Poland

For the purposes of Extradition Act 2003 section 12A, an accusation European arrest warrant must be read together with further information supplied by the issuing judicial authority. That information is ordinarily incorporated into, and forms part of, the warrant, except where the warrant is so deficient as to be a nullity.

If the warrant and further information give reasonable grounds for believing that a decision to charge or try has not been made, the court must proceed to the second statutory stage and require the requesting authority to prove the matters specified in section 12A(1)(b). The court must not resolve an ambiguity by speculation. Article 6 prevents extradition only where there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice; general concerns about judicial independence in Poland do not suffice without an exceptional, individualised case.

The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland under section 21A(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. The European arrest warrant concerned an accusation of attempted fraud by false emails.

Two issues remained. First, whether extradition was barred under section 12A because the Polish authorities had not decided to charge and try him. The warrant stated that he was charged, but further information stated that he had not yet been charged before a court and that proceedings remained at the preparatory stage. Secondly, whether extradition was barred by section 21A read with Article 6 because of alleged political interference with the Polish judiciary.

The central issues were how the warrant and further information should be read together, and whether the evidence established the statutory and Convention thresholds.

1. Section 12A. The appeal on the section 12A issue was adjourned for further information. The district judge had been plainly wrong to consider only the European arrest warrant and to treat it as conclusive while ignoring the further information supplied by the Polish prosecuting authority.
2. Further information from the issuing judicial authority or public prosecutor is ordinarily to be treated as incorporated into, and part of, the European arrest warrant. The warrant and further information are not separate documents. The reference in Kandola to reading the warrant as a whole therefore includes such further information. The exception is a warrant so deficient as to be a nullity.
3. Read as a whole, the warrant and further information created obvious reasonable grounds for believing that the competent Polish authorities had not made a decision to charge or try the appellant. The statement that he had not been charged before the court was difficult to reconcile with the warrant’s statement that he had been charged. The district judge was not entitled to speculate that the further information merely meant that the appellant had not yet appeared before a court. An explanation was required.
4. Because the first-stage threshold was met, the district judge should have proceeded to section 12A(1)(b). The High Court could not remit the matter under section 27, but could adjourn the appeal and seek further information to determine whether the overall decision was correct. Counsel were directed to prepare questions for the issuing authority, with a response required within 14 days of transmission.
5. Article 6. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. Extradition is barred only where there is a real risk of a trial amounting to a flagrant denial of justice. The evidence concerning political influence over the Polish judiciary was vague and general. This was an ordinary alleged fraud with no apparent political or sensitive content, and did not approach the exceptional, individualised threshold identified in Lis.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal challenged the extradition order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram on 20 January 2019. The section 12A issue was adjourned for further information. Permission to appeal on the Article 6 issue was refused.