The High Court has refused an application to surrender Adam Jan Szadkowski to Poland, finding that the European arrest warrant did not satisfy the requirements for a sentence imposed after a trial he did not attend.
The application sought his surrender to serve a sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed in June 2020. The judgment says three years, seven months and 26 days remained to be served. The warrant concerned two offences said to have been committed in May 2007.
The court found that Szadkowski did not attend the sentencing hearing on 24 June 2020. Polish authorities said notice was treated as served after delivery notices were left at an address he had provided in 2007, after he signed an advisement that the address would be used if he did not provide a new one. The court also noted that he was not represented, no copy of the verdict was served on him, and an application to extend the time to appeal was refused.
Szadkowski objected to surrender on several grounds, including that he had not attended the hearing. In an affidavit, he said he had not returned to Poland since 2007 and had received no notice. His solicitor submitted that the proceedings had been suspended in 2008, resumed in 2020 after a change in Polish law, and that Szadkowski had not been notified of the resumed proceedings.
The judge considered whether Szadkowski had waived his right to be informed of the hearing. Although he had left Poland while aware of an ongoing legal process and had been told to update his address, the judge found that the circumstances did not establish unequivocally that he had waived that right. The trial took place about 12 years after the proceedings were put on hold; there had been no personal service, and Szadkowski was unrepresented.
The court ruled that surrender was precluded under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and refused the application. It did not need to decide the other objections in detail. On a separate surrender request heard alongside this case, the judge had concluded that surrender was not precluded on section 37 grounds relating to personal or family circumstances.