The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Minister for Justice’s appeal against a High Court refusal to consent to the execution in Poland of two prison sentences imposed on Ryszard Szlachcikowski in 2009.
The appeal concerned a request under Article 27.4 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and section 22(7) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Minister sought consent for proceedings to execute sentences of six months and one year. The sentences related to separate Polish cases in which Mr Szlachcikowski was tried in his absence. He had been surrendered to Poland in October 2021 in connection with a different European arrest warrant.
The High Court found that Mr Szlachcikowski had shown a manifest lack of diligence: he had provided an address during preparatory proceedings, was told that notices sent there would be treated as delivered in certain circumstances, and did not notify authorities of a change. Notices for the hearings were sent to that address but not collected. The Polish authority said there were no facts showing he actually knew the hearing dates.
The High Court nevertheless refused consent because the information from Poland did not establish that he had been warned, or otherwise knew, that the trials could proceed in his absence if he failed to attend. The Minister argued on appeal that his conduct supported an inference of unequivocal waiver. The respondent’s counsel maintained that lack of diligence alone could not show he understood the consequences.
Delivering judgment on 10 May 2024, Mr Justice Edwards said a waiver could be inferred from conduct and did not always require an express warning. But the court had to be satisfied that the person appreciated the consequences of the conduct. The evidence in this case did not show that Mr Szlachcikowski had been told that a decision could be made in his absence, that such advice would be sent to the address he provided, or that he otherwise knew the consequences.
The court also rejected the Minister’s reliance on Mr Szlachcikowski’s previous criminal record, finding no evidence that he had previously been warned about trials in absentia or experienced one. It held that the evidential gap could not be bridged by speculation.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The High Court’s refusal of consent therefore stands; the Court of Appeal did not grant consent for the requested proceedings to execute the two sentences.