R Majchrzak v Regional Court in Kielce, Poland

This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham of 4 November 2011 to order the extradition of the appellant to Poland on a conviction European arrest warrant to serve the unexpired term of two years and three months and twenty-eight days of a sentence imposed of two years and four months' imprisonment for two offences of robbery committed rather a long time ago: robbery on 18 June 1999 and of urging a witness to provide false testimony on 23 or 24 June 1999. The warrant was issued on 10 May 2010 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 11 June 2010.

The appellant was arrested on 6 October 2011. At the hearing, according to the note of counsel for the requesting state, the appellant admitted that he was present when he was convicted. No argument was raised by Mr Kilkenny. Directions had been given for filing evidence and a skeleton argument but the appellant did neither. It was contended that it would have been oppressive to extradite him because he suffered from prostate cancer. It is now contended that he was receiving treatment for that in the United Kingdom. It was also contended that he had mental health problems when in Poland. Nothing further has been said about those matters.

The appellant also now relies on two further grounds, each of which would have been available to him at the extradition hearing. The first was that his partner was eight months pregnant and, the second, the delay since the offences were committed.

Mr Butt raises a technical argument also on the validity of the warrant itself. I deal with that first. This is not an argument which was raised before the district judge, but because it is a pure question of law it is possible to deal with it without injustice to the requesting state and I propose to do so. Whether or not it is right that such argument should be permitted, in principle, is a matter for another day.

Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 permits two categories of warrant —in customary shorthand, an accusation and a conviction warrant —to be issued. A conviction warrant is dealt with by Section 2 (5) and (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 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.

(6) The information is —

(a) particulars of the person's identity;

(b) particulars of the conviction;

(c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's asrrest in respect of the offence;

(d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has not been sentenced for 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."

There is no express requirement that the warrant should specify the date of conviction or the date upon which the sentencing court first imposed a sentence or the date upon which the sentence became final.

This warrant complies in every respect, it is conceded, bar arguably one, with the requirements of Section 2 (5) and (6). It is however contended that because it does not set out the date on which the appellant was convicted or expressly the date on which he was first sentenced so it fails to satisfy those requirements. What the warrant states is that the enforceable judgment in respect of which the...