Maciej De Lehenstein Werndl v District Court in Krakow, Poland

In extradition proceedings, an English court may rely on further information from the requesting state where the information explains an apparent change in the limitation period and identifies the legal sources of the applicable extension. A subsequent development affecting one source of extension does not make an independently identified alternative source unreliable. Controversies about the effect of foreign law should ordinarily be ventilated in the requesting state’s courts, rather than investigated through a further English extradition enquiry, unless an arguable exception is shown.

The appellant challenged an order made by DJ Cieciora on 17 August 2023 for his extradition to Poland in respect of two matters. One concerned a consolidated sentence for acquiring criminal property and possessing class A drugs. The other concerned a sentence for wounding with intent.

Further information established that the first matter had become non-extraditable under new Polish regulations. The respondent provided changing limitation dates for the second matter, referring first to the Covid Act and also to decisions handed down on 18 November 2020. The appellant argued that the changing dates and lack of production of the November 2020 decision justified permission to appeal and a further enquiry.

1. First matter. The respondent accepted that extradition could no longer be maintained for the first matter. Permission to appeal was granted on a rolled-up basis, the appeal was allowed, the extradition order was quashed in relation to that matter, and the appellant was discharged from it.
2. Limitation period. The apparent oscillation in the dates did not establish an arguable ground of appeal. The Extradition Arrest Warrant identified the original limitation date. Further information dated 5 June 2023 identified both the Covid Act and the November 2020 decisions as sources of extension. The later information explained that the Covid Act could no longer be relied upon following a subsequent Polish constitutional decision, but that the independently identified November 2020 decisions continued to provide a ten-year extension.
3. The November 2020 decision could not plausibly be treated as a later invention because it had already been identified in June 2023, when the Covid Act was also relied upon.
4. The court was entitled to rely on the March 2024 further information both as to the adverse effect of the November 2020 order on the wounding matter and as to the favourable effect of the new Polish regulations on the first matter. The explanations provided were sufficient and further details were unnecessary.
5. Any remaining controversy about the effect of Polish law was for the Polish courts. Following the principle reflected in the Filipek line of cases, conveniently gathered in Grazulis v Lithuania [2015] EWHC 707 (Admin) at §5, there was no arguable exception requiring an English enquiry. Permission to appeal on the wounding matter was therefore refused.

There was no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of the appellant’s publicly funded costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The court granted permission to appeal and allowed the appeal in relation to consolidated judgment II K 442/07/K, quashing the extradition order and discharging the appellant on that matter. Permission to appeal was refused in relation to case II K 1533/07/K.
2. District Judge Cieciora — On 17 August 2023, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland in relation to both matters.