Miroslaw Misko v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz, Poland

An extradition warrant satisfies the information requirement where it gives the requested person and the requested state a sufficiently clear understanding of the alleged offending and permits consideration of any bar to extradition. Exact dates and the number of alleged occasions need not always be stated. Under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, the question whether decisions to charge and try have been made is distinct from whether the case is ready for trial or whether the prosecution is likely to succeed. The court must respect the requesting state’s responsibility for progressing its own criminal proceedings. A tribunal’s appointment under procedures alleged to breach the requirement that it be established by law does not, without more, establish a flagrant denial of justice. Permission to add an arguable ground was therefore refused and the extradition appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed against an extradition order made by District Judge Richard Blake on 20 December 2019. The Regional Court in Bydgoszcz sought his surrender under an accusation European Arrest Warrant concerning alleged rape, abuse of a child and secret filming of naked children. The District Judge ordered extradition, limiting the relevant conduct to acts committed in Poland before 12 August 2012.

On appeal, the issues included compliance with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, whether the secret-filming allegation was an extradition offence, whether section 12A prevented extradition, proportionality under article 8, and permission to add an article 6 ground concerning judicial reform in Poland.

1. Section 2 information requirements. The warrant complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to the rape allegation. The allegations identified the victim, the nature of the offending, the first alleged rape as occurring between May 2011 and May 2012, and further alleged offending up to the appellant’s departure from Poland. The absence of the precise number and date of every alleged rape was not fatal.
2. The secret-filming allegation also contained sufficient particulars. References to surreptitious filming of naked children with concealed cameras adequately described the quality of the conduct and indicated potentially criminal conduct. The absence of the precise dates or number of occasions did not invalidate the warrant.
3. Extradition offence. The same particulars were sufficient to show that the secret filming was capable of amounting to an extradition offence. The submission that the conduct might have been innocent or merely unusual therefore failed.
4. Section 12A. The requesting authority’s further information was fairly read as confirming that no decision to try had been made because the appellant was abroad. The court would not infer an additional reason from the outstanding European Investigation Order. Section 12A does not require the English court to investigate whether the case is trial-ready or whether the prosecution is likely to succeed. Those matters fall within the responsibility of the requesting state, consistently with the mutual-confidence principle identified in Puceviciene v Lithuania [2016] 1 WLR 4937.
5. Article 6 amendment. The decisions in Astradsson v Iceland and Advance Pharma v Poland concerned whether a tribunal was established by law. They did not determine whether a hearing would involve a flagrant denial of justice. The court followed Wozniak v the Circuit Court in Gniezno, Poland [2021] EWHC 2557 (Admin) and gave significant weight to the Grand Chamber judgment in cases C-562/21 and C-563/21. The application to amend was refused.
6. The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Richard Blake on 20 December 2019 was dismissed. Permission to amend the grounds of appeal to add a further article 6 ground was refused.