The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less than four months. The statement did not allow the court to differentiate between the sentences. The House was asked whether it had 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.
Held: In a case where each of the original sentences was for conduct satisfying all the other requirements for an extradition offence, it was enough for the warrant to specify the cumulative sentence. If it exceeded four months it was irrelevant that some of the original sentences might have been less than that.
The difficulty was that the words implementing the Eurpean decision was in a compressed form. The case of Pupino required the UK courts to interpret its law in the light of the wording of the Framework Decision. Applying this, the district judge was entitled to find that the European arrest warrants satisfied the requirements of section 2(2)(b) of the 2003 Act and were accordingly Part 1 warrants, that effect had to be given to the extradition procedure and that the offences constituted by the appellant’s conduct taken as a whole fell within the definition of an extradition offence in section 65(3).
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 7, [2008] 1 WLR 325, [2008] 4 All ER 445
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 65(3)(c), Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003 (SI 2003/3150)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland Admn 31-Jul-2007
Extradition was sought of the defendant to Poland. The defendant challenged the validity of the European Arrest Warrant, saying that it listed offences for which he was sentenced to less than four month’s imprisonment, and that sufficient . .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Cited – Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
Cited – Trepac v County Court In Trencin Slovak Republic Admn 22-Nov-2006
The court heard an application for an extradition order from the Slovak Republic, a category 1 territory which had imposed a single sentence in respect of two offences which appeared to have been committed on the same day: attempted murder and . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Pupino ECJ 16-Jun-2005
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Articles 34 EU and 35 EU – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of vulnerable . .
Cited – Hilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Extradition
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.264278
