Sesinova v District Court in Most, Czech Republic, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 07, 2017, [2017] EWHC 2755 (Admin)

Issuing Organization:Administrative Court
Actores:Sesinova v District Court in Most, Czech Republic
Resolution Date:November 07, 2017
 
FREE EXCERPT

UCase No: CO/2209/2017

UNeutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2755 (Admin)

UIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

UQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

UADMINISTRATIVE COURT

URoyal Courts of Justice

UStrand, London, WC2A 2LL

UDate: 7 November 2017

Before:

USIR WYN WILLIAMS

USITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Simon Gledhill (instructed by H.P. Gower, Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant

Emilie Pottle (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared for the Respondent

Hearing date: 27 September 2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentSir Wyn Williams:

  1. This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Snow made on 5 May 2017 whereby he directed that the Appellant should be extradited to the Czech Republic pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (hereinafter referred to as ``the EAW'') issued on 10 February 2017 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 14 February 2017.

  2. Before the District Judge a number of reasons were advanced as to why extradition should not be ordered. This appeal, however, is confined to a single issue, namely whether the EAW complied with section 2 Extradition Act 2003 (``the 2003 Act'' or ``the Act''). That section so far as material reads as follows:-

    ``(1) This section applies if the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person.

    (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) ...

    (b) the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6).

    ...

    (5) The statement is one that--

    (a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued has been convicted of an offence specified in the warrant by a court in the category 1 territory, and

    (b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence.

    (6) The information is--

    (a) particulars of the person's identity;

    (b) particulars of the conviction;

    (c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence;

    (d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has not been sentenced for the offence;

    (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.''

    ......

  3. The relevant parts of the English translation of the EAW adduced before the District Judge are as follows. In Box (b) the judgment to be enforced is described as follows:-

    ``The judgment issued by the District Court in Most dated 12th January 2017 reference No.2 T98/2013.''

    Box (c) contains the heading ``Length of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed'' and then continues:

    ``A summary punishment in the duration of 3 years and at the same time the sentence of the judgment from the District Court in Most dated 25th September 2014, ref. No. 1 T34/2014-179 is cancelled.

    Remaining sentence to be served: 3 years.''

    Box (e) has a description of the offences committed by the Appellant. It begins with the sentence:

    ``This arrest warrant relates to in total 1 crime.''

    It then continues:

    ``At the time from half of the year 2010 to July 2013, in various places in Most, without an appropriate authorisation ... she was selling and providing methamphetamine, the psychotropic substance ... for free to the persons among addicts ...''

    There are then set out further detailed particulars of this activity.

  4. At the hearing before the District Judge evidence was adduced about the accuracy of the English translation of the EAW and, in particular, the phrase which appears in Box (c) ``a summary punishment in the duration of 3 years''. The District Judge accepted that this was an erroneous translation; the correct translation was ``an aggregate punishment in the duration of 3 years''.

  5. As is clear from Box (c), the Appellant had been subject to an earlier judgment of the District Court in Most. That was a judgment dated 25 September 2014. This judgment related to offences of theft for which the Appellant had been sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment. This judgment had also been subject to a European Arrest Warrant...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL