Mr Janiga had absconded after the start of his trial in the Czech Republic. An EAW was issued. In the period between the issue of the warrant and the extradition hearing in the United Kingdom he was convicted and sentenced in his absence, although lawyers attended the hearing on his behalf. His lawyers lodged an appeal against conviction and sentence. On appeal the conviction was upheld but the sentence reduced. At the extradition hearing the District Judge ordered his discharge on the ground that the accusation warrant was defective as he had been convicted.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Further information provided by the issuing authority established a right to apply for reversal of the judgment and this ‘puts it completely beyond doubt in our view that the conviction and sentence were not final and enforceable’
The Hon Mrs Justice Swift DBE
[2010] EWHC 463 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .
Approved – Ruzicka v District Court of Nitra, Slovakia Admn 19-May-2010
An accusation warrant issued by the Slovakian judicial authority was valid notwithstanding the fact that Mr Ruzicka had already been convicted and sentenced in Slovakia because he had appealed against the conviction and sentence in circumstances in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.402596
