REGINA v LUKASZ GRAMAN

Under the speciality regime in the Extradition Act 2003, a court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on an offence which the European Arrest Warrant does not adequately bring within the statutory exception. A conviction for failure to surrender to bail must therefore be quashed where the warrant gives insufficient notice of that offence.

Article 4a of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant does not itself confer a right to a retrial after a conviction in absence. It identifies conditions relevant to execution of a warrant by reference to retrial rights arising under domestic law. Representation by a lawyer at trial provides no basis for a retrial claim under that framework.

The appellant was convicted in his absence at Guildford Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and of theft. He had left the United Kingdom before trial. Following execution of a European Arrest Warrant, he later appeared before the Crown Court, admitted failing to surrender to bail, and received a consecutive sentence for that matter.

His application for leave to appeal the section 18 conviction, together with a substantial extension-of-time application, was referred to the full court. He also challenged the conviction for the Bail Act offence. The central issues were whether speciality permitted proceedings for that offence and whether the warrant entitled him to a review of his conviction because his trial had proceeded in his absence.

The court quashed the conviction for failing to surrender to bail, but otherwise dismissed the appeal and saw no purpose in extending time for an appeal against the section 18 conviction.

1. The appellant's extradition engaged the speciality principle in section 146 of the Extradition Act 2003. The European Arrest Warrant referred to the arrest warrant for non-attendance, but did not adequately bring the Bail Act offence within section 146(3)(b). Applying the principles in R v Seddon [2009] 1 WLR 2342, the Crown Court had no jurisdiction to proceed on that offence. The prosecution properly conceded the point.

2. Article 4a of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant did not create a European Union law right to a retrial. Its function was confined to defining grounds for non-recognition in the mutual-recognition scheme. Any retrial right therefore depended on domestic law.

3. The warrant was issued before the trial and accurately identified the scheduled trial date. The later Interpol Diffusion disclosed that a conviction in absence and an eight-year sentence had followed. The executing judicial authority could have sought further information under Article 15, but did not do so.

4. In any event, there was no proper basis to resist execution or claim a retrial under the trial-in-absence provisions because the appellant was represented at trial. The court applied Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] 1 WLR 3344. The appellant did not contend that the decision to try him in his absence was wrong under domestic law, and the court considered that such a contention would have failed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2021] EWCA Crim 1561, the court quashed the conviction for failing to surrender to bail, but dismissed the challenge to the substantive conviction.
• Crown Court at Guildford: On 16 May 2019, the appellant admitted failing to surrender to bail and received two months' imprisonment consecutive to the substantive sentence.
• Crown Court at Guildford: On 22 March 2018, the appellant was convicted in his absence of an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment; the theft sentence was concurrent.