QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF PRZEMYSLAW CIESIELSKI||Claimant|
|DISTRICT COURT IN KALISZ, POLAND||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms Amelia Nice (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"(2) A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains—
(a)the statement referred to in subsection (3) and the information referred to in subsection (4), or
(b)the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6)."
He points to the fact that there is then a dichotomy between conviction matters and accusation matters and in the subsections which follow different requirements are imposed in relation to the information which is to be included in the warrant depending on whether the matter is an accusation matter or a conviction matter.
"B. Decision on which the warrant is based -
1. Arrest warrant or judicial decision having the same effect:-
- final and binding sentence by the Circuit Court in Jarocin of 27 August 2003 regarding the case No II K 42/03 -
- final and binding sentence by the Circuit Court in Jarocin of 15 July 2002 regarding the case No II K 100/02 -
- final and binding decision by the Circuit Court in Jarocin of 18 October 2005 regarding the case No II K 100/02 -
- final and binding decision by the Circuit Court in Jarocin on 30 December 2004 regarding the case No II K 214/03 about temporary arrest for 2 months from the date of detention (the present case No 11 K 19/05)-
- final and binding aggregate sentence by the Circuit Court in Jarocin of 26 August 2003 regarding the case No II K 81/03 -
2. Enforceable judgment:-
II K42/03, II K 81/03, II K 110/02, II K 214/03 (II K 95/05)-
C. Indications on the length of the sentence-
1. Maximum length of the custodial sentence or detention order which may be imposed for the offence:-
V - 5 years -
VI - 8 years -
2. Length of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed: -
II and III - 10 months jointly -
IV - 2 months of substitute custodial sentence-
3. Remaining sentence to be served: -
II and III - 10 months jointly -
IV - 2 months of substitute custodial sentence -
E. Offences -
1. This warrant relates to six offences in total -
2. Description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed:-
I. On 20 February 2002 in Jarocin he forged Jacek Kowalski's employment certificate in Mala Gastronomia Marianna Ratajczak with an intention to use it as authentic. Having access to the original company stamp, he used it on the original employment certificate form, filled it in stating untruth about Jacek Kowalski's employment with the said company and finally forged the signature of Marianna Ratajczak on the seal impression.
II. In October 2000 in Jarocin, Province of Wielkopolska, in order to foil an execution, he sold a BMW, Reg. No KZR 8326, previously seized by a Court Debt Collector in Jarocin, for PLN 4,000 to be spent on his needs thereby reducing his creditor Teresa Adamiak's ability to claim her damages.
III. On 16 February 2000 in Jarocin, in 'Elemix' store, in order to gain material advantage, he made Zagiel SA unfavourably dispose of the property in that by means of his father Ryszard Ciesielski's ID Card and driving licence, he concluded a credit contract with the store staff and signed it with his father's name. As a result he received a bank credit, which helped him wheedle a stereo set including Technics speakers, a Philips TV and a Technics amplifier worth 3,447.00 PLN in total, thereby causing damage to Zagiel SA in Lublin.
IV. Between February 2000 and 16 April 2000 in Jarocin he mistreated his Rottweiler in that through his lack of care he led to the dog's malnutrition, emaciation, excoriation and wounds around its neck and front limb.
V. On 6 February 2002 in Jarocin, Province of Wieklopolska, with an intention to use as authentic, he forged an employment certificate in that he used a stamped certificate of Mala Gastronomia Marianna Ratajczak, 63-200 Jarocin, ul. T.Kosciuszki and entered there Mariusz Kazmierczak's personal data, fictitious position, fictitious monthly salary and then forged Marianna Ratajczak's signature thereby causing her damage.
VI. On 6 February 2002 in Krotoszyn, Province of Wielkopolska he helped Mariusz Kazmierczak commit a fraud to purchase a cell phone 'Nokia 8210' in 'Arkan Bertz' store at Rynek 26, by providing him with an employment certificate forged by himself."
"... in a conviction warrant case, the requested person will need to have sufficient details of the circumstances of the underlying offences to enable him sensibly to understand what he has been convicted of and sentenced for - and to enable him to consider whether any bars to extradition might apply. In the light of that, and having regard to Article 8(1) of the Framework Directive, I consider that it will almost always be necessary for a conviction warrant to contain the number of offences for which the requested person has been convicted - and some information about when and where the offences were committed, and the requested person's participation in them, although not necessarily in the same level of detail as would be required in an accusation warrant. ... Each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances."
That passage was cited with approval by Davis J in Echimov v Court Of Babadag Romania  EWHC 864. I have also been referred by Ms Nice to R (on the application of Denis) v Regional Court in Warsaw  EWHC 3507 (Admin), where at paragraph 18 Wilkie J said this:
"Neither the framework agreement nor the Extradition Act specify that there must inevitably and invariably be a particular piece of information, such as the date of conviction or sentence, supporting the arrest warrant. The question is a matter to be looked at in the round and without unnecessary technicality, but it is necessary that the totality of the information must give the necessary particulars of conviction so as fully to inform the subject of the warrant sufficiently to enable him to know what he is going back to and what defences he might have, both here and abroad."
"... only the gravest effects of interference with family life will be capable of rendering extradition disproportionate to the public interest that it serves."
At paragraph 95, Lord Brown stated that "it will only be in the rarest of the cases that Article 8 will be capable of being successfully invoked".