Extradition refused in the High Court under s.20
Louise represented a Polish man who had been convicted in his absence for two minor frauds dating back about 18 years ago. She successfully raised that despite the arrest warrant indicating that he was personally summoned, he was not properly warned about his trial and therefore had not waived his right to be present. Morris J ruled on appeal that the Crown had failed to prove to the criminal standard that any personal summons had taken place at all.
The arrest warrant had indicated that the requested person had been personally summoned, but this seemed to be contradicted by the further information served by the Polish authority. The further information also dovetailed the requested person’s account of being questioned in the Polish Consulate in the UK, but never receiving any summons to attend his trial.
The District Judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court had discharged the requested person because there was ambiguity and confusion which allowed him to look behind the warrant. He found there was no evidence to prove to the criminal standard that the requested person was summoned as envisaged by Article 4a (1)(a)(i) FD and discharged him. The Requesting Judicial Authority had appealed the ruling, arguing that the DJ should not have looked behind the warrant, that it did not matter where he may have been summoned and that there was sufficient evidence to show that he was summoned in person, and that if the DJ had found otherwise, he should have adjourned the hearing to allow the CPS to obtain further evidence.
Louise successfully argued that the DJ had been right not to take the warrant at face value due to the apparent inconsistency, that it could not be proven that he was summoned, and that the CPS had every opportunity to gather this evidence. As it was common ground between the parties that no retrial was offered, the High Court found that the DJ was right in discharging the requested person under s.20.
Louise was instructed by Seema Dosaj from Berris Law.
