Our team have been successful in securing the withdrawal of 4 European Arrest Warrants, and the discharge and immediate release from custody of four of our clients.

Four of our clients were wanted on the European Arrest Warrants issued by the Polish and Hungarian Judicial Authorities.

They were remanded in custody continuously throughout the extradition proceedings.

In all 4 cases, we contacted the representative for the Issuing Judicial Authority and the National Crime Agency and made appropriate representations; Our clients had served very significantly nearly all the remaining sentences passed on by the Respondent’s courts.

Following our representations, the Respondent Judicial Authorities withdrew the European Arrest Warrants in all 4 cases. The National Crime Agency confirmed this position in their witness statements addressed to the Administrative Court Office. In consequence, the extradition orders made by the District Judges of Westminster magistrates’ court were quashed, and our clients discharged and immediately released from custody.

Crediting Periods of Remand during Extradition Proceedings

In a case where the Requested Person has been held in custody abroad awaiting extradition, it is necessary for the court of the Requesting State to make a direction if such time is to count; the reduction is not automatic.

As part of the extradition proceedings in this country, it can be often argued that extradition would be disproportionate to the Requested Person’s private rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Defence can rely on the fact that the Requested Person has served nearly all or a total of the sentence whilst remanded in custody in this jurisdiction, which can reduce the amount of time the Requested Person would have to serve in the Requesting State.

The minimum period for extradition on a conviction warrant is 4 months. The irreducible statutory minimum period of 4 months that governs conviction-type Part 1 arrest warrants is just that: the minimum possible period of a sentence that must have been passed on a defendant person who is in the Requested Person’s position and which remains liable to be served. The judge ought to recognise the irreducible statutory minimum period, and decide whether, in all the particular circumstances of this particular misconduct as specified in the arrest warrant, ordering extradition in order to serve the remaining sentence would be proportionate or not.  

The court is ought to give ‘much greater weight’ in an Article 8 balancing exercise to factors such as the time already served (Borkowski v Poland [2015] EWHC 804 (Admin ([11]). Further, the proportionality exercise to be undertaken when Article 8 is raised in response to a conviction Arrest Warrant, must include as a relevant factor an assessment of the likely period of time which is going to be served if the Requested Person is surrendered (Borkowski [13]).

Moreover, it is often possible to consider the possibility of early release in the Requesting State, and its impact on the assessment of proportionality in the particular case. In this respect, it is well-established that the court is entitled to take into account the provisions on discretionary release on licence by the Requesting State, and at which point this would be activated (Borkowski [16]). This is when the structure of the sentence specifically imposed by the Requesting State is the term that was sought to be imposed at the point of sentence.

We can help

If you require help with an extradition case, please contact our team on teamgf@lwsol.co.uk. 

Agnieszka M. Biel, Solicitor