Miroslav Murin v District Court in Prague (Czech Republic)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Green,Lord Justice Singh
Judgment Date19 June 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date19 June 2018
Docket NumberCase No: CO/5664/2017

[2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Singh

Mr Justice Green

Case No: CO/5664/2017

Between:
Miroslav Murin
Appellant
and
District Court in Prague (Czech Republic)
Respondent

John Crawford (instructed by H.P Gower Solicitors) for the Appellant

Daniel Sternberg (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 22nd May 2018

Judgment Approved

Mr Justice Green

A The issue

1

This appeal raises a narrow point of law which is whether a conviction European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) is capable, in principle, of covering a request by a Judicial Authority of a requesting state for return of a requested person to face proceedings to decide whether or not to activate a suspended sentence of imprisonment as a result of the commission of further offences. At the outset I would record my thanks to both counsel for the attractive and focused way in which they advanced their arguments both in writing and orally.

2

The Appellant argues that this situation does not fall within the scope of section 2 Extradition Act 2003 (“ EA 2003”) which defines a valid arrest warrant. The relevant part of section 2 is in the following terms:

“(2) a part 1 warrant is 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)

(5) 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 a 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.”

(Emphasis added)

3

The Appellant argues, in effect, that a request for the return of a person to face a hearing to determine whether a sentence should be imposed is not for a purpose specified under section 2(5)(b). In the Appellant's skeleton argument at paragraph [15] it is said that the appeal is made on a single ground that the District Judge ought to have decided differently, namely:

“That the Appellant's extradition is barred by section 2(5)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, as the Appellant is not sought either to be sentenced or to serve the sentence of imprisonment or other form of detention.”

4

The Respondent disagrees and argues that the Appellant's case rests upon an overly technical and restrictive interpretation of the EA 2003. It ignores the policy underlying the Act. In any event it is plain that, on proper analysis, the arrest warrant in issue was properly categorised as a conviction warrant, which is perfectly apt to embrace a request for a person to face a hearing to decide whether, or not, to activate a suspended sentence already imposed. For these reasons the Respondent argues that the District Judge did not err and that the appeal should be dismissed.

B The facts

5

There is no material dispute about the facts. These can be summarised as follows.

6

By a EAW issued on 16 th February 2017 the Presiding judge of the District Court in Prague 1, in the Czech Republic, the judicial authority, seeks the extradition of the Appellant. The Appellant, Mr Murin, is 50 years of age. His extradition is sought to serve a sentence for 7 offences of theft (or attempted theft) of electronics and similar property in Prague committed between 16 th December 2013 and 14 th February 2014. Full particulars of the offending are set out in the EAW. It appears from that document that the Appellant was charged with a single criminal offence upon the basis that the criminal acts in question constituted a single course of conduct. In each case the Appellant stole electronic equipment, such as mobile phones, notebook computers, laptops and iPhone from retail outlets. In the EAW (at Box (f)) the following is stated about the sentence imposed upon the Appellant;

“In this legal case, the sentenced Miroslav Murin was imposed a 2-year imprisonment, the serving of which was suspended for a probationary period of 4-years. During the probationary period the sentenced person has committed another criminal offence, and therefore a public session should be ordered to decide whether the sentenced person shall serve the 2-year imprisonment. For this purpose, the presence of the sentenced person needs to be ensured.”

7

The judicial authority has provided further information in this case dated 28 th August 2017. It was received on 11 th September 2017. The information has been drafted by Judge Kalasova of the District Court for Prague 1. The contents of the further information may be summarised as follows. First, under Czech law the requested person is considered to be a convicted person. Second, he was sentenced by a judgment of the 28 th May 2014 to 2 years imprisonment suspended for 4 years. The sentence became final on 12 th June 2014 and the period of suspension therefore, runs until 12 th June 2018. The requested person committed a further offence in the course of the suspension period and thereby breached the conditions of his suspended sentence. Third, the presence of the Requested Person at the hearing is required to determine whether he will serve the 2-year conditional sentence. The requested person has already been sentenced and he will not be tried again. The hearing will determine only whether to activate the sentence of 2 years imprisonment which was suspended.

8

Judge Kalasova has set out, for the benefit of this court, the relevant provisions of the Czech Penal Code.

9

The Appellant was arrested on 16 th July 2017. An initial hearing took place the following day before DJ Rose. The Appellant took no issue pursuant to sections 4 or 7 EA 2003 at the initial hearing in relation to matters such as prompt production, service of the EAW or identity. The Appellant did not consent to his extradition. The extradition hearing was opened. The issue was identified as the validity of the EAW pursuant to section 2 EA 2003. It was further argued that extradition was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR. Directions were set for service of a proof of evidence and statement of issues by 7 th August 2017. The Appellant was granted bail. However, those directions were not complied with and the matter was re-listed on 10 th August 2017. It was explained in the course of that hearing that the Appellant was failing to cooperate with his legal representatives.

10

He failed to attend an extradition hearing on 15 th August 2017 and a warrant not backed for bail was issued. The matter was listed for full hearing on 18 th September 2017. The Appellant did not attend that hearing.

11

DJ Inyundo heard argument from counsel for the judicial authority and for the requested person on the matters in issue. He reserved judgment until the Appellant was arrested. The warrant for the Appellant's arrest was executed and he was produced at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 30 th November 2017. He entered a plea of guilty to the charge of failure to surrender. He was sentenced to 10 weeks imprisonment. The judgment in this extradition matter was handed down that day and the extradition of the Appellant was ordered.

12

By a notice of appeal dated 6 th September 2017 the Appellant sought permission to appeal. Grounds of appeal were served with the notice of appeal. Perfected grounds were subsequently served in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules. The one ground raised, which was the same jurisdictional issue raised before the District Judge, was whether the Judge was correct to conclude that the EAW was valid pursuant to section 2 EA 2003. Permission to appeal was granted by Lewis J in an oral hearing on the 27 th February 2018.

C The judgment of the District Judge

13

The Judge in a careful judgment described the contents of the EAW and further information received. He summarised the submissions of the parties. In relation to the Appellant's argument pursuant to section 2 EA 2003 he encapsulated the nub of the argument in the following way:

“…there was no dispute that the requested person had received the sentence set out in the EAW. However, the purpose of the EAW was not for the requested person to serve the sentence. He would have to be extradited, for that decision to be made. As such he had not been sentenced because there remained a possibility that the hearing, as set out in the EAW, would result in the requested person's favour. As such, he would have been extradited, but not required to serve the sentence. The EAW was therefore inconsistent with the Act. If the hearing at which the decision was to be made was found in the requested person's favour, the requirements of section 2(5)(b) of the Act would not be met. As a final decision had not been made, extradition would not be “for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence”. As such the warrant was invalid because there was intermediate penultimate step[s] to be undertaken, which was incompatible with the act.”

14

The Judge did not accept this submission. He observed (judgment paragraph [32]) that it was not necessary for an EAW to describe in great detail the circumstances surrounding the offence. Instead the particulars need only provide sufficient information to enable the requested state and the requested person to know whether any barriers to extradition applied. The court was required to examine the EAW as a whole and, if necessary, to consider further supplementary information. He then stated as follows:

“… I am satisfied that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • The Minister for Justice and Equality v Dorian Szamota
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • July 21, 2021
    ...consideration of Ardic by the courts of England and Wales. The interesting issue presented in Murin v District Court in Prague [2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin) was whether the requested person could be surrendered to the Czech Republic for the purpose of a hearing to determine whether to activate ......
  • Radoslaw Korzynski v Regional Court of Bialystok (Poland)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • February 17, 2022
    ...breach of the conditions of a community sentence. She told me, and I accept from her, that a case called Murin v Czech Republic [2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin) was another case about activation of a suspended sentence, the reasoning in which does not materially assist as to the present issue. In ......
  • KN v Sokolov District Court, Czech Republic
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • June 5, 2020
    ...that the currently-suspended 10-month sentence is properly the subject of extradition action and the case of Murin v Czech Republic [2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin) was referred to. The appellant relied on Amended Grounds of Appeal dated 14 November 2019, supplemented by oral submissions, and acco......
  • David Demeter v District Court in Usti Nad Labem, Czech Republic
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • July 17, 2020
    ...a suspended sentence order. The appellant accepts that that is a legitimate extradition purpose, by reference to the case of Murin [2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin). The suspended sentence order whose activation would be under consideration was imposed by the Czech Republic court on 11 September 20......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT