QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE PENRY-DAVEY
|REGIONAL COURT IN SZCZECIN, POLAND||Respondent|
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)
Miss Mertens (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"(2) A Part I warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a Category 1 territory and which contains -
(b) the statement referred to in sub-section (5) and the information referred to in sub-section (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 .....
(b) particulars of the conviction;
(c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the Category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence."
"28 ..... If the warrant does not conform to the requirements set out in Section 2, it will not be a Part 1 warrant within the meaning of that section and Part 1 of the Act will not apply to it."
In Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid  UKHL 6, he said at paragraph 50:
"I wish to stress however that the judge must first be satisfied that the warrant with which he is dealing is Part I warrant within the meaning of Section 2 (2). A warrant which does not contain the statements referred to in that sub-section cannot be eked out by extraneous information. The requirements of Section 2 (2) are mandatory. If they are not met, the warrant is not a Part I warrant and the remaining provisions of that Part of the Act will not apply to it."
"In summary, it follows from Article 34.2 (b) and from the principle of loyalty to the Union that every Framework Decision requires their national courts to bring their interpretation of national laws, as far as possible, into conformity with the wording and purpose of the Framework Decision regardless of whether those laws were adopted before or after the Framework Decision so as to achieve the result envisaged by the Framework decision."
In paragraph 43 of its judgment, the Court of Justice said:
"When applying national law the national court that is called on to interpret it must do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Framework Decision in order to obtain the result it pursues and thus comply with Article 34.2 (b)."
"This warrant has been issued by a competent judicial authority. I request that the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order."
"1 Type of decision; Final decision of the District Court in Swinoujscie of 10 November 2000.
2 File Reference;
"1 Maximum length of the custodial sentence or detention order which may be imposed for the offence: 3 years' imprisonment.
2 Length of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed: 2 (two) years' imprisonment.
3 Remaining sentence to be served: whole."
A natural reading of that discloses that the appellant has been sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment.
"The person, on 13 May 2000 in Swinoujscie, threatened Marcin Zak with beating and breaking his legs in order to force him to give a bicycle ..... with the purpose to use it lawlessly and as a result of those threats Marcin Zak gave the abovementioned bicycle."
That part of the warrant refers to the relevant provision in the Polish Penal Code. The legal title for that offence in Polish law is "illegal duress in order to force certain behaviour."
"The convict did not turn up to the detention institution in order to serve the sentence of imprisonment. He was not brought to the detention institution due to the fact that he is not staying at his address. An arrest warrant was sent after him. The police information indicates that he was arrested in Great Britain on 11.06.2005 in connection to drink driving. Limitation of penalty execution will lapse on 20 November 2015."
Section 2 (6) (b)
Section 2 (6) (c)
Section 2 (6)(c) requires "particulars of any other warrant issued in the Category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence." Miss Powell submits that the EAW was deficient in this respect. Although when relating "other circumstances relevant to the case" it stated that "an arrest warrant was sent after him" it did not make clear when or by which court the warrant had been issued. The district judge held that the failure to include further particulars of that warrant was not fatal, and added:
"Section 2 (6) (c) was mostly a requirement for accusation cases."
If by that he meant that Section 2 (6) (c) has no application to conviction cases that would, in my view, be erroneous because the wording plainly does not limit the requirement to accusation cases.