District Court of Warszawa Poland , R.(On Application of) v Kubun [2012] EWHC 3036 (Admin) (10 October 2012)

District Court of Warszawa Poland , R.(On Application of) v Kubun [2012] EWHC 3036 (Admin) (10 October 2012)

A defect in the specification of one offence in a multi-offence extradition warrant does not invalidate the entire warrant; extradition can be ordered for properly specified offences only. The description of the second offence was too vague, particularly as to place and circumstances, and did not meet the requirements of Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3036 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: District Court of Warszawa Poland; Defendant: Kubun; Claimant: Kubun; Defendant: District Court of Warszawa-Praga
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Extradition Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Specification of Offences, Extradition Act 2003, Multiple Offences in Warrant
Extradition Criminal Law Administrative Law European Arrest Warrant Specification of Offences Extradition Act 2003 Multiple Offences in Warrant

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

District Court of Warszawa Poland

Claimant

Kubun

Defendant

Kubun

Claimant

District Court of Warszawa-Praga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Extradition Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defect in the specification of one offence in a multi-offence extradition warrant invalidates the entire warrant
  2. 2 Whether the description of the second offence meets the requirements of Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

A defect in the specification of one offence in a multi-offence extradition warrant does not invalidate the entire warrant; extradition can be ordered for properly specified offences only. The description of the second offence was too vague, particularly as to place and circumstances, and did not meet the requirements of Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal by individual dismissed; extradition upheld for first offence only
  • Appeal by authority dismissed; discharge in relation to second offence upheld