Samuel Fortes Paiva v Tribunal Da Comarca De Setubal Portugal
[2024] EWHC 980 (Admin)
District Court in Krakow, Poland v Kamil Pultorak
15 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2777 (Admin)
High Court
A Polish man was wanted for assault and murder. A UK judge let him go on the assault charge, saying it wasn't clear if he'd been at the trial. A higher court said the man had deliberately skipped the trial, so the lower court was wrong. Now, the man will likely be sent back to Poland to face charges.
Key Facts
- •The Appellant (Requesting Judicial Authority) appealed the District Judge's discharge of the Respondent in an extradition case.
- •Two arrest warrants were involved: one for a conviction of assault (III Kop 62/20) and one for accusation of murder (III Kop 49/21).
- •The District Judge discharged the Respondent regarding the assault conviction warrant, but ordered extradition for the murder accusation warrant.
- •The appeal concerns the District Judge's decision to discharge the Respondent on the assault conviction, based on Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003).
- •The Respondent argued he was not present at his trial for the assault, having left Poland before the trial date.
- •The Appellant argued the warrant indicated the Respondent's presence, and the District Judge should not have gone beyond the warrant's wording.
- •The District Judge considered additional information provided by the Appellant post-hearing and concluded the Respondent's presence at trial wasn't definitively proven.
- •The Appellant also argued the Judge should have admitted the post-hearing further information.
Legal Principles
Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 dictates a staged approach to determining whether a person was convicted in their presence, deliberately absented themselves, or would be entitled to a retrial.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 20
The principles in *Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania* [2016] WLR 3344 emphasize that extradition hearings should generally rely on the information within the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), avoiding extensive satellite litigation. Further information is only sought in cases of ambiguity or potential abuse of process. A person is considered to have deliberately absented themselves if their own conduct led to their unawareness of the trial date.
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] WLR 3344
Appellate courts are reluctant to intervene in case management decisions, such as the admission of post-hearing evidence.
Various cases cited including *Re TG (A Child)* [2013] EWCA Civ 5, *Deripaska v Cherney* [2012] EWCA Civ 1235, *Stokors SA v IG Markets Ltd* [2012] EWCA Civ 1706
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The District Judge erred by failing to consider whether the Respondent deliberately absented himself from trial under Section 20(3) of the EA 2003. The evidence suggested the Respondent's absence was deliberate, as he left Poland while subject to conditions that prevented him from doing so. This fulfilled the criteria under *Cretu*. The judge's failure to address this point meant he should not have discharged the Respondent.
The order for discharge was quashed.
The higher court found the District Judge's decision to discharge the Respondent was incorrect.
The matter was remitted to the District Judge.
The District Judge must now proceed with the extradition process under Section 29(5)(b) and (c) of the EA 2003.