BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Supreme Court |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Supreme Court >> Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2 (23 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/2.html Cite as: [2013] 1 WLR 324, [2013] 2 All ER 93, [2013] WLR(D) 18, [2013] UKSC 2, [2013] 2 CMLR 33 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2013] 1 WLR 324] [View ICLR summary: [2013] WLR(D) 18] [Help]
Hilary Term
[2013] UKSC 2
On appeal from: [2012] EWHC 173
JUDGMENT
Zakrzewski (Respondent) v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland (Appellant)
before
Lord Neuberger, President
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
23 January 2013
Heard on 6 December 2012
Appellant John Hardy QC Katherine Tyler (Instructed by CPS Appeals Unit) |
Respondent Hugo Keith QC Mary Westcott (Instructed by Shaw Graham Kersh Solicitors) |
LORD SUMPTION (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson agree)
"relate to the current operative sentence and not to earlier sentences which have been subsumed in an aggregated order. In determining whether the requirement of section 65 is satisfied, the court needs to know the total length of time which the court of the requesting state has ordered must be served in prison. In the present case, that is the aggregated order.": [2012] 1 WLR 2248, para 26.
"58. The court's task -- jurisdiction, if you like -- is to determine whether the particulars required by section 2(4) have been properly given. It is a task to be undertaken with firm regard to mutual co-operation, recognition and respect. It does not extend to a debatable analysis of arguably discrepant evidence, nor to a detailed critique of the law of the requesting state as given by the issuing judicial authority. It may, however, occasionally be necessary to ask, on appropriately clear facts, whether the description of the conduct alleged to constitute the alleged extradition offence is fair, proper and accurate. I understood Ms Cumberland to accept this, agreeing that it was in the end a matter of fact and degree. She stressed, however, a variety of floodgates arguments with which in general I agree, that this kind of inquiry should not be entertained in any case where to do so would undermine the principles to be found in the introductory preambles to the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002.
59. Ms Cumberland submitted that an argument of the kind which succeeded before the District Judge can be raised, but not with reference to section 2 of the 2003 Act. She said that the proper approach was to deal with it as an abuse argument, and this ties in with the appellant's third ground of appeal, to which I shall come in a few moments. I do not agree that the respondent's case could only be advanced as an abuse argument. It can properly be advanced, as it was, as a contention that the description in the warrant of the conduct alleged did not sufficiently conform with the requirements set out in section 2 for the reasons advanced by Mr Summers with reference to Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31 and Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland [2008] 1 WLR 325. If that is shown, it is not a valid Part 1 warrant."
"The consequence of a composite sentence having been passed is that the single penalties imposed for each of the offences are replaced by that single composite sentence. In such a case, the penalties imposed for each of the offences are not to be enforced separately, but replaced with the new composite sentence that is to be enforced in respect of the convict... It should be noted that the issue of a composite sentence does not invalidate any of the individual sentences."
This answer was effective to explain the contents of the warrant. Its effect is that the original sentences remain valid but the cumulative sentence determines what period of imprisonment will be treated as satisfying them. Therefore, the information in the warrant about the original sentences did not cease to be true when the cumulative sentence was passed.