Nicholas Hearn & James Stansfeld secure leave to appeal to UK Supreme Court in linked extradition appeals

May 21, 2015

On Tuesday 4th November 2014, Nicholas Hearn appeared before a Divisional Court (consisting of Lord Justice Pitchford and Mrs Justice Swift DBE) on behalf of an individual who had been discharged from a European Arrest Warrant by the Deputy Chief Magistrate who had concluded that the EAW issued for the appellant did not contain sufficient details of the underlying jurisdictional basis for the EAW and thus did not comply with section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. On appeal brought by the Crown Prosecution Service the Divisional Court overturned the Deputy Chief Magistrate’s decision Wojciechowski v Poland [2014] EWHC 4162 (Admin). Nicholas successfully applied to the Divisional court to certify a question of general public importance.

On the 26th January 2015, Nicholas appeared before King J on behalf another individual who sought to argue that the EAW seeking his extradition did not comply with section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. King J followed the decision in Wojciechowski but also acceded to Nicholas’s application to certify a question of general public importance Marek Sas v Poland [2015] EWHC 648 (Admin).

On the 4th February 2015, James Stansfeld appeared before Mitting J on behalf a further individual who sought to argue that EAW seeking his extradition did not contain sufficient details of the underlying jurisdictional basis for the EAW and thus did not comply with section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. Mitting J followed the decision in Wojciechowski but acceded to James’s application to certify the same question of general public importance that arose in Wojciechowski and Sas and also a further related question.

On the 19th May 2015 the UK Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the decisions of the Divisional Court, King J and Mitting J.

 

The certified questions to be considered by the Supreme Court are as follows:

(1) When a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) gives particulars of a judgment or order made by the court of a category 1 territory, requiring the requested person to serve an aggregated sentence of immediate imprisonment, is the EAW defective for the purposes of section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 if it does not also give particulars of domestic warrants issued in the category 1 territory to enforce that judgment or order within the issuing state?”

(2) Does the term “any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person’s arrest in respect of the offence” in section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 only require the European arrest warrant to include the conviction of the requested person, or does it, following Poland v Wojciechowski [2014] EWHC 412 (Admin), require the particularisation of the decision that required the requested person to serve an immediate sentence of imprisonment and was the decision following which it could be said that the requested person was unlawfully at large?

(3) When a European arrest warrant gives particulars of a judgment or order made by the court of a category 1 territory, convicting the requested person, is the European arrest warrant defective for the purposes of section 2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 if it does not also give particulars of domestic warrants issued in the category 1 territory to enforce that judgment or order within the issuing state?

 

Nicholas is instructed by Leslie Franks solicitors (for Wojciechowski) and Kaim Todner (for Sas) and will be led in the Supreme Court by Mark Summers QC of Matrix Chambers.

James is instructed by Lawrence and Co. Solicitors and will be led in the Supreme Court by Clare Montgomery QC of Matrix Chambers.

 

Related barristers