Marek Polkowski v District Court in Kalisz, Poland (A Polish Judicial Authority)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Nicol J |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 10 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | CO/4609/2011 |
Neutral Citation: [2011] EWHC 3649
Court and Reference: Administrative Court
Judges:Nicol J
CO/4609/2011
Appearances:Mr J Robottom (instructed by Kaim Todner Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant; Miss H Pye (instructed by the CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Issues: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was valid in that it provided adequate particulars.
Facts: P's extradition was requested by a Polish judicial authority on the basis of a conviction European Arrest Warrant to serve the remaining two years and two months-odd of a three year sentence passed for various offences relating to fraud. P had been allowed leave from prison to marry his girlfriend in Ukraine, and he submitted that he thought the remainder of his sentence had been cancelled. Moreover, P submitted that the EAW was deficient because it did not fulfil the necessary requirements in that (1) the particulars of the sentence were not adequately given in the sense that it did not make clear that P's sentence had been reactivated after he had been to Ukraine, (2) it was not clear from the EAW whether it was alleged that P was unlawfully at large, and (3) the EAW contained insufficient particulars of the Polish warrants for his arrest.
1 This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on 13th May 2011 that the appellant be returned to Poland pursuant to a European arrest warrant.
2 The warrant is a conviction warrant which called for the return of the appellant to serve the remaining two years and two months-odd of a three year sentence passed for various offences relating to fraud.
3 The extradition hearing before the district judge was brief. The appellant was represented by duty solicitor and, while not conceding that the order should be made, no positive argument was advanced as to why it should not and no bars to extradition were relied upon.
4 On the appeal the appellant seeks leave to introduce fresh evidence, which is a statement from him explaining how he began to serve his sentence, that after about one year he was allowed leave from prison to travel to Ukraine to marry his girlfriend, and that he thought the remainder of his sentence had in some way been cancelled, although from the European arrest warrant it appears that that belief was mistaken. Mr Robottom, on his behalf, describes a sentence of this kind as suspended. Terminology of that kind does not translate well; perhaps the term interrupted might be more accurate.
5 The appellant seeks to argue that whether this new evidence is taken into account or not, the warrant in this case was deficient. It does not, it is submitted, fulfill the requirements of a European arrest warrant and the district judge was not therefore entitled to proceed as he did under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
6 A Part 1 warrant is defined in s2 of the Act. It is described as:
an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains
(b) the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6).
Section 2(5) then says this:
The statement is one that
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued [has been convicted] of an offence specified in the warrant by a court in the category 1 territory, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence.
Section 2 then continues in subs(6) as follows:
The information is
(c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence
(e) 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.
7 Mr Robottom says that the particulars of the warrants and sentence in this case were not adequately given.
8 The European arrest warrant said this:
B. Verdict justifying the issue of the arrest warrant
1. Types of verdict:
Final and binding sentence by the Circuit Court in Krotoszyn from 7 January 2002 amended by the sentence by the District Court in Kalisz from 22 May 2002
Ruling by the District Court in Kalisz from 24 May 2005 ordering a warrant-based search- Ruling by the Circuit Court in Krotoszyn from 22 April 2009 ordering a warrant-based search
C. Information about penalty duration
2. Adjudicated imprisonment or detention: 3 years imprisonment.
3. Sentence left to be served: 2 years 2 months and 18 days imprisonment.
9 The appellant argues that the sentence was passed in 2002 for a three year term. Two years remained unserved. From the details in the warrant therefore the appellant submits that he cannot tell that the remainder of the sentence has been reactivated. He submits that it is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powierza v District Court, Warszawa, Poland
...v Regional Court of Torun, Poland[2011] Extradition LR 423, a decision of Burnett J; and Polkowski v District Court in Kalisz, Poland[2013] Extradition LR 50, a decision of Nicol J. 46. Although Mr Gill and Miss Bhatt sought to criticise the reasoning of Treacy J in Bulkowski, which was rel......