Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland
[2013] UKSC 2
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
An extradition warrant can be challenged on the basis that it contains an error that is misleading, but only where the error is material — not every inaccuracy justifies discharge.
Facts
Poland issued a European Arrest Warrant. The requested person challenged it on the basis of factual errors in the warrant.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court held that errors in a warrant could justify discharge only if they were material — that is, if the warrant would not have been valid under the issuing state's law, or the error was misleading.
Key Quotes
"Third, the error or omission must be material to the operation of the statutory scheme. No doubt errors in some particulars (such as the identity of the defendant or the offence charged) would by their very nature be material. In other cases, the materiality of the error will depend on its impact on the decision whether or not to order extradition."
— Lord Sumption at [13](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Applied in subsequent EAW challenge cases.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help