EXTRADITION — Extradition offence — European framework list offence — European arrest warrant containing inaccurate details of sentence to be served — Whether warrant valid — Extradition Act 2003, s 2(6)(e)

Pietrzak v Regional Court in Wloclawek, Poland; [2008] WLR (D) 190

QBD: Latham LJ and Nelson J: 12 June 2008

Art 8(1) of European Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 set out the contents necessary for a valid European arrest warrant: additional information specified in the form in the annex to the Framework Decision did not form part of the warrant for the purposes of validity.
The Divisional Court so held when dismissing an appeal by the fugitive, Wieslaw Peitrzak, pursuant to s 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, against that order of District Judge Purdy sitting at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 8 April 2008 to extradite him to Poland pursuant to two European arrest warrants.
The fugitive appealed on the ground that the District Judge failed to conclude that the first warrant was invalid because it did not contain sufficiently accurate particulars of the sentence to comply with s 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2000. The warrant stated that the fugitive’s remaining term to be served was two years and four months’ imprisonment whereas, as the District Judge was informed at the hearing, the term remaining was no more than seven months.
The fugitive argued that the warrant appeared to satisfy the requirements of s 2(6)(e) in that it contained “particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory, if the person has been sentenced for the offence” . But it did not satisfy the requirements of s 2(6)(e) when read so as to conform with art 8 of the Framework Decision which in turn had to be read together with the form to the Framework Decision which required the warrant to state “the remaining term to be served.” The fugitive also argued that for a European arrest warrant to be valid the particulars required by s 2 had to be set out clearly, fairly and accurately.

LATHAM LJ said that the form in the annex to the Framework Decision contained information which went beyond that which was required by art 8(1). The additional material over and above that specified in art 8(1) was useful to determine the extent to which the requesting state could satisfy the extradition requirements but it did not form part of the warrant for the purposes of validity. Accordingly the first warrant complied with the requirements of s 2 of the 2003 Act which correctly implemented art 8 of the Framework Decision, and was therefore valid.
NELSON J said that the form in the annex to Framework Decision was the vehicle through which mandatory information had to be set out. The contents and layout of the form were not mandatory.

Appearances: Charlotte Powell (Stringfellow & Co) for the fugitive; Louisa Collins (Crown Prosecution Service) for the Polish Authority

Reported by: Jessica Giles, solicitor