Regional Court in Tarnow Poland v Wojciechowski

On 11 February 2014, a judge of the Regional Court of Tarnow in Poland issued a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW" or "warrant") in respect of the respondent to this appeal, Mariusz Julian Wojciechowski. It was certified by the National Crime Agency on 14 March 2014. It was a conviction warrant concerning aggregate sentences of two months, 18 days; and one year, two months, 17 days respectively which, as I understand it, makes one year, five months and four days or thereabouts in all.

The respondent challenged the warrant at Westminster Magistrates' Court and Deputy Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot ruled that the warrant was defective in that it failed to give the particulars required by section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. Accordingly, she ordered the discharge of the respondent.

This is the requesting state's appeal against the district judge's decision.

To qualify as a EAW under Part 1 of the 2003 Act the warrant must specify the matters required by section 2. In a conviction case that information includes particulars of the requested person's identity, particulars of the conviction and the particulars of the sentence which may be imposed, or has been imposed, under the law of the category 1 territory.

The information required also includes by section 2(6)(c):

"particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence."

The meaning of those words was considered by the Supreme Court in Louca v Germany [2009] UKSC 4. It was held that the reference to "any other warrant" was not to a previously issued EAW, but to domestic arrest warrants or other decisions on which the EAW was founded as authority for its issue.

The words used in section 2(6)(c) were to be considered, having regard to the purpose to be identified in Article 8.1(c) of the Framework Decision which reads:

"(1) The European Arrest Warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:

…

(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same affect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2."

Article 1.1 of the Framework Decision provides:

"1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order."

To similar effect, Toulson LJ (as he then was) in Artola v The 6th Section of the National High Court of Madrid, Spain [2013] EWHC 524 (Admin) said at paragraph 8 in relation to the equivalent pre-conviction subsection of the 2003 Act:

"8. The effect, therefore, of section 2(4)(b) is that the EAW must identify the jurisdictional fact which, under the law of the issuing state, provides a legal basis for issuing an EAW within the scope of Articles 1 and 2. By 'jurisdictional fact' I mean the legal process which domestic law recognises as a proper foundation for the issue of the EAW. To take a simple building analogy, the EAW must identify the foundation brickwork on which the EAW stand."

Toulson LJ, with whom Underhill J (as he then was) agreed, accepted the submission made, that the question for consideration when examining the validity of the EAW was:

"… whether the totality of the information contained in the EAW satisfied the requirement of section 2(4)." (paragraph 23).

The terms of the warrant in the present case at section (b) were as follows:

"1. Decision type:

—enforceable decision of executing the preventive detention:

—enforceable judicial decision of executing another detention order, which, if so, is the following:

—enforceable judgment issued by:

(I) The aggregate judgment issued by the District Court in Brzesko on 27 July 2006, final as of 11 August 2006;

The aggregate sentence was passed in place of the individual sentences imposed in the judgments issued by:

"1" The District Court in Brzesko of 19 May 2003, file reference number VK 108/03, final as of 27 May 2003;

"2" The District Court in Brzesko of 20 August 2003, file reference number IIK 254/03, final as of 28 August 2003;

(II) The judgment issued by the District Court in Brzesko of 10 December 2012, final as of 18 December 2012."

At section (c) of the EAW it is explained that in consequence of these decisions the remaining lengths of the sentence to be served in respect of the earlier "(I)" offences is two months and 18 days in prison; and in respect of the later "(II)" offences one year, two months and 17 days' imprisonment.

In a section of the warrant headed "Other circumstances relevant to the case", it is stated that the requested person is in custody in the United Kingdom. The sentence imposed was an aggregate sentence in substitution for an earlier sentence imposed for the earlier offending. The respondent had commenced serving the earlier sentence and had been released from custody under an early release scheme. However, that release was revoked for failure to comply with conditions. The respondent was then sentenced for the further offences and was due to serve the aggregate sentence determined by the court.

In a letter of 11 July 2014, the requesting state provided further information. The letter stated that the respondent's early release had taken place on 22 June 2011. It was revoked on 12 April 2013 on the ground that he had committed a further offence during the trial period. By letter of 10 May 2013, the requested person was required to report to prison on or by 20 May 2013. The respondent did not surrender.

On 29 May 2013 the police issued "a warrant" for his arrest. The key date on which the warrant was founded was 20 May 2013, the date on which the respondent...