QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON
|THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEGNICA, POLAND||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mrs A Darlow (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"2. Amount of adjudged penalty of deprivation of freedom or another measure relying on deprivation of freedom:-
1 year and 2 months of deprivation of freedom-
3. Amount of penalty to be served:-
1 year 1 month and 28 days of deprivation of freedom."
"Konrad Pilecki was sentenced for the act that:-
(a) In the period from November 2004 through December 2004 in Lubin, acting with intent conceived in advance and in order to obtain financial benefit, he gave - three times - narcotic drugs in the form of marijuana in the amount of [and the value in Polish currency is given] per portion to a minor [who is named], however this act constitutes a petty case.
(b) In the period from October 2004 through December 2004 in Lubin, acting with intent conceived in advance and in defiance of the law he gave - two times - narcotic drugs in the form of marijuana to a [different] minor.
(c) In the period from October 2004 through January 2005 in Lubin, acting with intent conceived in advance and in common and together with the minors materials concerning whose were separated to proceed separate proceedings, he committed theft of ... "
"Konrad Pilecki was validly sentenced for committing three offences:
a. for an act stipulated in article 46 item 3 in connection with article 46 item 2 of the Act on counteraction against drug addiction of 24 April 1997 in connection with article 12 of the penal code - committed in the period from November 2004 through December 2004 - to a penalty of 3 months of deprivation of freedom.
b. for an act stipulated in article 45 item 2 of the Act on counteraction against drug addiction ... in connection with article 12 of the penal code ... to a penalty of 5 months of deprivation of freedom.
c. for an act stipulated in article 278 §1 of the penal code in connection with article 12 of the penal code - committed in the period from October 2004 though January 2005 to a penalty of 1 year of deprivation of freedom.
The court aggregated the above mentioned penalties of deprivation of freedom adjudged with regard to Konrad Pilecki for the above mentioned offences and computed a combined punishment of 1 year and 2 months of deprivation of freedom with a conditional stay of its execution for a probation period of 3 years."
"The court aggregated the above mentioned penalties of deprivation of freedom adjudged for the above mentioned offences and computed a combined punishment of one year of deprivation of freedom for Konrad Pilecki."
(a) that the conduct constituting the offence occurs in a category 1 territory. As I have already mentioned, it was common ground that Poland is a category 1 territory, and that this conduct occurred in it.
(b) The conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom if it occurred in that part of the United Kingdom. It is not suggested in this case that the conduct which is the subject of the Arrest Warrants would not be offences under the law of England and Wales; and
(c) importantly, that "a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of four months or a greater punishment has been imposed in a category 1 territory in respect of the conduct". If in fact there have been a number of offences, each of which was the subject of the imposition of a sentence less than four months, it is submitted it would be quite wrong in respect of those minor offences for there to be extradition to the requesting state.
I. "16. The form of the warrant itself and the wording of section 2(6)(e) do not seem to me to require the specification of a separate sentence for each separate offence.
II. 16. Having said that, I accept that where a foreign court has passed two separate sentences for two offences, one would expect the warrant to indicate that. Whether a failure to do that invalidates the warrant I will come to in a moment. But one should resist the temptation to assume that other member states in the European Union use the same sentencing regime as ourselves, with consecutive or concurrent terms in multiple offence cases. It seems that in the Slovak Republic it is possible in the case of multiple offences to impose a single overall sentence reflecting the total criminality, which sentence then appears to stand as the sentence for each offence. It is an unjustified assumption that the 13-year sentence in the present case can be split into its 'constituent parts' for each offence, as the appellant argues. No doubt one could seek, post hoc, to apportion in some way as between the two offences, but it does not appear that the sentences is built up in such a way by the sentencing court. The evidence here clearly shows that the court's order does not indicate separate sentences or separate penalties being imposed for each of those two offences. No separate sentences were imposed for each offence.
III. 17. It would be an unwarranted action on the part of the English courts to demand, as Mr Watson suggests, that the Slovak court should divide up the sentence of 13 years into such constituent parts when it has not itself done so in its original decision. I can see no justification for such a course of action. The ethos of the Framework Decision involves respect for, and confidence in, the legal systems of other Member States even though they may well differ in various ways amongst themselves in their particular procedures.
IV. 18. As I have said, I can see an argument for stating separate sentences where separate sentences are in fact imposed, because such information may be necessary in order to decide whether under section 10 an offence is an extradition offence. That, however, is not this case. Moreover, whilst such information may be needed by the court for the initial section 10 stage hearing, it does not follow that it can only be provided in the warrant and that the warrant is invalid if that is not included amongst the information within it. That does not have to be decided in this case but, for my part, I can see no reason why the requesting state cannot provide such information in supplementary documentation. Indeed Mr Watson in the course of argument accepted that that could be done.
V. 19. For these reasons I conclude, therefore, that the arrest warrant in this case is a valid one because it complies with section 2(6) of the 2003 Act."
I. "In the trial when the valid judgment sentencing Konrad Pilecki was pronounced by the District Court in Lubin in case ... 486/05 as well as in case ... 1439/05 - though having been summoned properly, the named above convict did not take part in the trials. In the trial dealt with by the District Court in Lubin, case No ... 1439/05 [the subject of European Arrest Warrant 60/07], the convict was served a summons by mail to the address he had indicated during the preparatory proceedings. The convict did not notify the court of a change to his home address and did not deliver his new address. While in the trial dealt with by the District Court in Lubin, case ... 486/05 [the subject of European Arrest Warrant 56/07], the convict was served a summons also to the address indicated by the convict, but here the summons was taken over by Dorota Pilecki - mother of the convict. In the above described situations, the Polish law stipulates that a summons was served correctly."