[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Gebski v Regional Court in Radom, Poland [2015] EWHC 704 (Admin) (09 February 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/704.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 704 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		9 February 2015

1. MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: The appellant appeals against the decision of District Judge Bayne, made on 28 November 2014 at Westminster Magistrates' Court, ordering his extradition to Poland on a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued out of the Regional Court in Radom, Poland on 23 July 2014 and certified by the NCA on 1 August 2014.
2. The EAW relates to a total of five offences: three of robbery, one of attempted robbery and one of theft. His extradition is sought to serve 7 months and 27 days remaining of a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. The appellant appeals on the sole ground that the EAW upon which his return is sought is invalid by reason of insufficiency of particulars of conviction as required by section 2(6)(b) of the 2003 Act.
3. Ms Hill, for the appellant, submits that on the appellant's case the offences for which his return is sought were disposed of in two separate convictions. However, only a single sentencing judgment is particularised. The EAW fails, she submits, to identify the dates of the two convictions, the courts where they were imposed or any reference numbers. The convictions were almost certainly, she submits, imposed on different dates. The reference number provided appears to relate to the aggregated sentence. In the circumstances, she submits, even considering the totality of the warrant as a whole, the particulars of conviction are not discernible and thus the warrant is invalid. She frankly accepts this is a technical legal point, but of course it is one she is perfectly entitled to take.
4. Ms Mackinnon, for the respondent, relies on the judgment of Treacy J, as he then was, in Wozniuk v Regional Court In Bialystok [2010] EWHC 3138 (Admin) where, having considered the judgment of Hickinbottom J in Sandi v the Craiova Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin), he said:

"I do not consider that the date of the conviction needs necessarily to be spelt out in order to satisfy the requirement that, 'Particulars of the conviction', be included in the warrant. If there is sufficient other information contained in the warrant which enables the facts and circumstances of conviction to be ascertained then the legislation will be satisfied."

Treacy J continued:

"I consider that it would be wrong to treat Sandi as laying down some inflexible rule that the date of a conviction must always be specified. The question of particularity must be considered in the light of the circumstances of the individual case."

5. The appellant has the date of the cumulative sentence that was imposed, the court name and the reference number for that decision. This was the sentence that gave rise to the EAW. I am satisfied that the present warrant is section 2 compliant. In my view, there is sufficient information to enable the appellant to identify the issues to be raised in his extradition.
6. Further, I accept Ms Mackinnon's submission that, having regard to the authorities to which she has referred in her skeleton argument and in her oral submissions, in particular Wozniuk and the decision of Davies J, as he then was, in Bader v Penal Division Of The Veszprem County Court Hungary [2011] EWHC 436 (Admin) , in a case concerning a cumulative judgment, the presence of the date of the imposition of that judgment is sufficient to render the EAW a valid EAW.
7. In his proof of evidence, adopted by him in evidence before the lower court, the appellant provides details of both sets of offences and the sentences that were imposed. Further, he refers to a hearing in 2009 when his sentences were aggregated. I consider, as I have said, that the appellant had sufficient information and particulars to respond to the extradition warrant.
8. For the reasons I have given, this appeal is dismissed.