Classic extradition and European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
“The punishment is a sort of medicine” as Aristotle used to say. For a while, the tough hand of Lady Justice being directed by the will of eliminating a plaque of crime, which affected and spread among societies, created the legal tools for bringing the unfaithful to a rule of criminal law, to her.
Based upon the historical sources and the publications of a remarkable extradition, experts first archived a request (official notification) for a criminal to be brought to justice; it was a formal letter authorised by Ramses II in 1280 BC to Hittite- Hattusli III.[1]
The above-mentioned document has been written using a graphic language (hieroglyphics) and currently is being kept in the Amon Temple in Karnak. The request was a part of the peace related treaty issued after the Hittite failure in invading the invincible Ramses II.
Together with the societies’ cultural, economic and general world view, related evolution, including mass migration, not only shows us that the associated crime was unavoidable, but also the ways of the fleeting justice system; there is a notable progression: crime has become cross border.
From this, it then appeared obvious that ruling a separate and specialised law became essential. This shaped the Classic Extradition Procedure in Europe and Aleksandra Kowalik will reveal and focus on the mutual relationship between The United Kingdom and Poland European Arrest Warrant was affected and the relation today.
A Brief View of The Classic Extradition Procedure in Europe And Its Strongest Disadvantages
The fundamental basis of the international cooperation aimed on bringing the accused or convicted person to justice; The European Extradition Convention signed in Paris on 13th December 1957 with its two attachments (the Additional Protocols ruled in Strasbourg on 15th October 1975 and 17th March 1978) were considered.
The main establishments and purposes has been clearly drafted in the article 1 which states:
The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order.
Ruling the Convention does not mean there has been a legislative hole or inactivity. The United Kingdom is fully entitled to take a pride in the fugitives’ exchange based upon and pursuant to the drafted arrangements (dated on 1174) between King Henry II of England and King William of Scotland. The similar arrangements have been issued between Edward I and French King Philip in 1303.
The crown establishment of a classic extradition was the citizenship related bar as the requested stated that it could use its refusal right to extradite its own citizen (article six of The European Extradition Convention).
The further basic assumption of a classic extradition system drafted in the Convention (1957) was a recognition of accusation or a conviction for a political offence as a potential bar for extradition.
None of above has been established by the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member Stat- neither in the absolute bars to extradition (article four) nor in the compulsory bars mentioned in article five.
Various range of arbitrary and underspecified grounds for refusals requests, including the diplomatic authorities’ involvement which the requests and all the relevant correspondence, have been passed through and have had an impact for a pace of requests consideration, even though the Convention did not establish a passage of time as a bar for extradition.
Nevertheless, the lack of passage of time does not change the fact that both extradition and EAW’s proceedings aim to bring one, as soon as it is possible, to a specific justice as one must bear in mind the expiration time of chased offences or crimes.
To simplify and speed up the extradition proceedings within the Members States, the European Council in Tampere was established in 1999. The Council’s intentions were to rule the new EAW proceedings pursuant to a principle of mutual respect and recognition.
I will allow to focus myself on the mutual relationship between The United Kingdom and Poland European Arrest Warrant, as Poland has been taking the first place in the first row in requesting for the justice’s fugitives.
The crucial moment of the cooperation between those two countries has taken its place in 1993 when The European Extradition Convention and European Council Order (section 4.1) Extradition Act 1989 Poland became a signatory of a Treaty with The United Kingdom.
The current cooperation pursuant to the Council Framework Decision 13th June 2002, following my observations as a practitioner in both jurisdictions, drew my attention to the necessity for a mutual cooperation, not only between the Member States’ authorities, but inter alia, the lawyers from both countries as the ways of defending the requested persons are completely different; this will see the result meeting at one point, namely the successful defence.
In accordance to my experience, the designated Westminster MC Judge or the CPS representing the requesting state often ask for the further information, especially a related passage of time, but without knowing a Polish criminal procedure and general responses, it is difficult to find the answers for the asked matters.
It is not enough for the requesting state (namely Poland) to provide the British authorities with unspecified information instead of a detailed list of the undertaken domestic warrant activities. Unfortunately, regardless of the fugitive position, the delay itself has often been caused not by fleeting or hiding by the RP but by a simple inactivity of the Polish Judicial Authorities for many years.
The similar issues refer to “in absentia” proceedings and doubts with the summons for the trial as Polish criminal system allows for serving the summons (signed for correspondence) to any adult person staying at the address regardless his bonds/ relationship or other kind of connections with the summoned person, regardless of the possibility that the judicial correspondence will never have been passed to the addressee.
Cooperation is especially important in relation to the non-convicted persons; as a Polish defence lawyer, there is an open way for negotiating with the Polish Judicial Authorities for issuing an “iron letter” – however the letter relates only to non-convicted (can be accused) or not accused persons, which means one cannot apply after being sentenced (even in non-abiding sentences) because the letter has only been established for the investigation stage.
The range of iron letter negotiations allows for granting bail conditions similar to those recognised by the British rule of law, resulting in EAW’ s withdrawal.
The above-mentioned cooperation would, in my opinion, enable savings to costs and significantly improve, not only the pace of the proceedings, but would limit its complexity.
Nevertheless, without arranged seminars, conferences or other types of joined trainings, it seems the mutual cooperation is impossible without a mutual awareness of the grounds of the domestic procedures.
[1] C. Nicholls QC, C. Montgomery QC, J. B. Knowles QC, A. Doobay, M. Summers: The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance (3rd Edition) Oxford University Press, page 4
