The High Court ruled that fundamental-rights objections under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 could not be considered in a preliminary challenge to a request for consent to prosecute a man in Poland for two additional alleged drug-trafficking offences.
The decision concerned the scope of the court’s jurisdiction at this stage. It did not decide whether consent should ultimately be granted for the two prosecutions.
The respondent, Sylwester Jozef Strzelecki, had been surrendered to Poland in 2012 after the High Court made an order under section 16 of the 2003 Act. The surrender followed a European arrest warrant issued by Poland in 2010 seeking his prosecution for seven drug-trafficking-type offences. The court was told he was in custody in Poland awaiting trial.
In December 2012, Poland asked the High Court to consent to his prosecution for two further offences not covered by the original warrant. The respondent filed objections relying mainly on section 37, which addresses circumstances in which surrender would be incompatible with human-rights or constitutional obligations. His counsel argued that he should be able to raise those concerns at the consent hearing, including under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Minister for Justice and Equality argued that section 22(8) requires the court to consider whether the additional offences are offences for which a person could be surrendered under Part 3 of the Act. On that interpretation, the provision concerns offence-related grounds for non-execution, rather than rights-based objections focused on the individual.
Mr Justice Edwards accepted the Minister’s interpretation. He found section 22(8) clear and unambiguous, and said it did not allow the court to consider the respondent’s section 37 objections in deciding the consent request. The judge said fundamental-rights claims could be pursued before the courts in the issuing state, Poland, where the respondent was then located.
The court determined the preliminary issue in favour of the Minister. The judgment records no final decision on Poland’s request for consent to prosecute the two additional offences.