QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE SWIFT
|THE REGIONAL COURT OF BYDGOSZCZ, 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)
Mr Weekes (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
(i) case reference III K 1189/03, which alleged that, on 15 July 2004, the appellant was convicted of ten offences of theft and one offence of handing stolen goods for which he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment of which 1 year 7 months and three days' imprisonment remains outstanding;
(ii) case reference III K 938/04, which alleged that, in November 2005, the appellant was convicted of an offence of burglary for which he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment;
(iii) case reference III K 217/05, which alleged that, on 24 January 2006, the appellant was convicted of five offences of theft for which he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment;
(iv) case reference III K 535/06, which alleged that, on 3 April 2006, the appellant was convicted of an offence of burglary for which he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment; and
(v) case reference IV K 324/05, which alleged that, on 6 December 2006, the appellant was convicted of an offence of burglary for which he was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.
(i) the district judge was wrong to find that the first warrant was valid within the meaning of Section 2(6)(e) of the Act; and
(ii) the district judge was wrong to find that the offences specified in case references 1189/03 and 217/05 were "extradition offences" within the meaning of Section 65(3)(c) of the Act. These are the proceedings where a single sentence of imprisonment was imposed for multiple offences.
"(b) The statement referred to in sub-section (5) and the information referred to in sub-section (6)."
"(e) particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has been sentenced for the offence."
"The conduct ..... constitutes an extradition offence in relation to the category 1 territory if these conditions are satisfied:
(a) the conduct occurs in a category 1 territory,
(b) the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the UK if it occurred in that part of the UK,
(c) a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 4 months or a greater punishment has been imposed in a category 1 territory in respect of the conduct."
"The short but important question on this appeal is whether, for the purposes of Part I of the 2003 Act, it has to be shown that the sentence that was imposed in respect of each offence, taken on its own, was at least four months or whether it is sufficient, where the person has been convicted of several offences and an aggregated sentence has been imposed on him, that the aggregated sentence was for four months or a greater period."
"A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months."
"It is the length of the sentence alone that determines whether or not it falls within the scope of a European arrest warrant."
"Traditional co-operation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions within an area of freedom, security and justice."
"There is no indication here or anywhere else in the Framework Decision that the sentence needs to be examined more closely to see how it was arrived at. There is no indication that it is any concern of the executing Member State to inquire as to the number of offences to which the sentence relates, if there was more than one. It is the length of the sentence that the requested person is to be required to serve, and the length of that sentence alone, that determines whether or not it falls within the scope of a European arrest warrant."
"The situation that presents itself in a conviction case is ..... in essence a very simple one. The Framework Decision does not require it to be stated in a European arrest warrant that the requested person is unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence. Nevertheless the assumption on which it proceeds is that this indeed is the position. The requested person has absconded, and his return is needed so that he may serve his sentence in the Member State where he was convicted. The principle of mutual recognition dictates that effect must be given to the sentence that was passed in the issuing Member State. All the executing Member State needs to know in these circumstances is whether or not the sentence was one for at least four months. It is not for the judicial authorities in the executing Member State to question how the sentence was arrived at."
"I would hold that it is unnecessary, in a conviction case to which section 65(3) applies, for the judge to ask himself whether the sentence that was passed for each offence satisfies the test that is set out in section 65(3)(c). If the other requirements of section 65(3) are satisfied, all he needs to do is to determine whether the sentence for the conduct taken as a whole meets the requirement that it is for a term of at least four months."