The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jaroslaw Sliwa’s appeal against a High Court decision consenting to five requests from Polish authorities to prosecute him for alleged fraud or offences involving obtaining money by false pretences.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 4 May 2016, concerned the interpretation of section 22 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The court considered whether restrictions that apply when a person is awaiting surrender also govern a later request for consent to prosecution after surrender.
Sliwa had been surrendered to Poland in 2014 under four European arrest warrants. Two related to offences for which he was sought for prosecution; two concerned prison sentences. Poland later made seven requests under section 22. The appeal concerned five of them, identified as petitions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. The court said all five sought consent to bring criminal proceedings under section 22(7)(a).
Sliwa argued that consent should be refused because Polish law and practice did not meet the requirements in section 22(2), which addresses specialty protections at the initial surrender stage. He also raised concerns about conditions in Polish prisons before the High Court, but did not pursue that argument on appeal.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that section 22 distinguishes between a person facing surrender and someone already surrendered. It held that the specific restrictions in section 22(2) apply to the former situation and cannot be transferred to a post-surrender consent request. Section 22(8), which bars consent where the offence is one for which the person could not be surrendered under Part 3 of the Act, was the express statutory prohibition considered in this case.
The court noted that section 22(7) is permissive and did not decide whether other circumstances might independently justify refusing consent. It said that question was unnecessary to resolve. In this case, Poland had sought consent through the statutory process, and there was no claim that the requests at issue breached the corresponding rule in Article 27 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s consent to the five prosecution requests in place. The court expressed no view on two other Polish petitions, numbers 4 and 7, which were not before it, or on the meaning of “proceeded against” in section 22(2).