Albert Zawadzki v Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Keith |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 433 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/8811/2013, CO/2141/2013,Case Nos: CO/8811/2012 |
| Date | 07 March 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2013] EWHC 433 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Keith
Case Nos: CO/8811/2012
CO/2141/2013
Miss Unnati Bhatt (instructed by Guney, Clarke & Ryan) for the Appellant
Miss Natasha Draycott (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 1 March 2013
On 12 August 2012, the appellant, Albert Zawadzki, was arrested pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Regional Court in Warsaw on 28 February 2012 ("EAW1"). The warrant had been certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 14 June 2012. An extradition hearing took place at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13 August 2012 at which District Judge Zani ordered Mr Zawadzki's extradition to Poland. That was not a surprising outcome, because Mr Zawadzki was represented by a solicitor with experience of extradition cases who did not suggest that there was any bar to Mr Zawadzki's extradition. Despite that, Mr Zawadzki now appeals against the order for his extradition.
On 20 December 2012, Mr Zawadzki was arrested again, this time pursuant to another European Arrest Warrant issued by the Regional Court in Warsaw on 24 October 2012 ("EAW2"). This warrant had been certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 11 December 2012. An extradition hearing took place at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 20 February 2013 at which District Judge Coleman ordered Mr Zawadzki's extradition to Poland. Mr Zawadzki appeals that order for his extradition as well. This is the Court's judgment following the hearing of both appeals.
Both the warrants were what are colloquially called conviction warrants. EAW1 sought Mr Zawadzki's extradition so that he could serve a sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed on 19 May 2009 for three offences of fraud committed between April and June 2005. That sentence had been conditionally suspended for five years, but it was activated on 29 July 2011 after he had "evaded the curator's surveillance" (which I take to mean that his whereabouts were not known to his probation officer) and he had committed "intentional crime" (which I take to mean another offence). EAW2 sought his extradition so that he could serve a sentence of one year's imprisonment imposed on 30 January 2007 for an offence of infringing the bodily integrity of a police officer in March 2006. That sentence had been conditionally suspended for four years, but it was activated on 16 June 2010. EAW2 did not say why.
I deal with the appeal relating to EAW1 first. The appellant's notice said that full grounds were to follow. None were ever filed. However, in the section of the notice which was to be completed if Mr Zawadzki was making any additional applications, the box for applying for a stay of execution was ticked, and Mr Zawadzki made the following statement in connection with that application:
"I live here with girlfriend, if there is any chance can I stay in prison here. I was imprisoned for one year in Poland. I was harassed, threats and psychologically. I was also assaulted a few times. It's much safer for me here. Another reason, I wouldn't be able to find work in Poland and I had a job here."
Mr Zawadzki was represented on the appeals by Miss Unnati Bhatt. She was under the impression that this statement constituted Mr Zawadzki's grounds of appeal, and said in her skeleton argument that while these grounds were not abandoned, they were not pursued with any additional submissions or evidence. Even if they were grounds for appeal (which they were not), in the absence of any evidence in support of them, they cannot be pursued at all.
The only argument which Miss Bhatt deployed related to the information which EAW1 contained. Poland has been designated a category 1 territory pursuant to section 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the Act"). Accordingly, Mr Zawadzki's extradition is governed by Part 1 of the Act. The information which a conviction warrant must contain is that provided for by section 2(6) of the Act (which is in Part 1). That information is required by section 2(6)(b) to include "particulars of the conviction", and by section 2(6)(e) to include "particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has been sentenced for the offence". The giving of this information is critical because a failure to do so is fatal to a request for extradition. That is the effect of what Lord Hope said in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] AC 1 at [28]:
"If the warrant … does not conform to the requirements set out in section 2, it will not be a Part 1 warrant within the meaning of that section, and Part 1 will not apply to it."
At one stage I thought that the point being taken by Miss Bhatt was that the particulars of the "intentional crime" which Mr Zawadzki committed and which was partly responsible for the activation of the conditionally suspended sentence were not given in EAW1. However, it turned out that her argument was much more refined than that. It had to be, because she acknowledged that there was ample authority for the proposition that neither...
To continue reading
Request your trial