Ziembinski v Regional Court of Plock (Poland)

On an extradition appeal, the sufficiency of an accusation warrant is a matter of fact and degree. A date range, including one beginning with a season, is not inherently impermissible if the particulars enable the requested person and the court to consider relevant bars and proportionality.

Article 8 proportionality is reviewed, rather than reheard. The appellate court should not interfere unless the lower court misapplied established principles, made a material unreasonable finding, omitted or relied on an irrelevant factor, or reached an irrational conclusion. Where several warrants are before the court, Article 8 proportionality is assessed in the round, but section 21A proportionality is confined to the accusation warrant and its specified matters.

The Appellant appealed against District Judge Griffiths’s decision in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 13 January 2021 ordering extradition to Poland on two European Arrest Warrants. EAW 1 was an accusation warrant concerning the alleged sale of cannabis to a minor between spring 2009 and 16 June 2010. EAW 2 was a conviction warrant concerning an assault for which a suspended sentence had been activated.

The appeal concerned the sufficiency of EAW 1’s particulars, the effect of time served and delay on Article 8 proportionality, the relevance of Brexit-related uncertainty, and proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.

Appeal dismissed.

1. Sufficiency of particulars. The requirement under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, read with article 8(1)(e) of the Framework Decision, is satisfied where the warrant provides sufficient information to identify the accusation and permit consideration of applicable bars, framework-list classification and dual criminality. Whether a time range is too broad is a matter of fact and degree. The particulars in EAW 1 were sufficient.
2. Further information. The court had jurisdiction to admit further information on an extradition appeal where this was in the interests of justice. The information clarified that the allegation concerned one minor and a continuing course of conduct, and caused no real prejudice.
3. Article 8. The court must review the lower court’s proportionality decision and should interfere only on the limited grounds identified in Belbin and Celinski. The period remaining on a sentence is only one factor and there is no fixed threshold at which a short remaining term determines the outcome. The fugitive status relevant to EAW 2 could properly be considered when assessing delay in relation to EAW 1 because the warrants and chronology substantially overlapped.
4. Brexit-related uncertainty may be relevant to the Article 8 balance, but the Appellant’s settled immigration status did not establish that extradition would cause permanent severance of his relationship. The lower court’s conclusion that the public interest in extradition outweighed the private and family-life factors was not wrong.
5. Section 21A. Proportionality under section 21A is assessed by reference only to the accusation warrant and the specified matters in section 21A(3): seriousness of the alleged conduct, likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures. Different outcomes may be justified for accusation and conviction warrants. EAW 1 involved conduct sufficiently serious that extradition was proportionate, and a custodial sentence was a likely penalty.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — Appeal against the decision of District Judge Griffiths in Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 13 January 2021. Appeal dismissed: [2022] EWHC 693 (Admin).