AC-2023-LON-001921 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Admin)

It is common ground that this Court can properly have in mind evidence which was before the Court in the previous cases of A and Doga, and discussed in the judgments in those cases: cf. Dobrowolski v Poland [2023] EWHC 763 (Admin) at §§17-18; and Andrysiewicz v Poland [2024] EWHC 1399 (Admin) at §31. That includes the recorded descriptions of the judgment of the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation Criminal Division 17 March 2021, No. 20-84365) which was before the Divisional Court in A (see A at §§11, 32) and dealt with in Doga (see Doga at §16). It includes the recorded descriptions of the evidence of the French lawyers M Kempf (A at §§9-10); M Pejoine (A at §19vi); and M Arnaud (A at §20; Doga at §§9-15, 29). It includes the recorded descriptions of the evidence about other extradition cases (A at §§19iii-vii, 46; Doga at §18). On 1 April 2025, the CPS – “to comply with our duty of candour” – provided two documents which had been relied on in A and Doga. One was a letter from the Deputy State Prosecutor dated 4 August 2022 relied on in A (see A §§16-17; Doga §17). The other was the 28 March 2023 Further Information from the French Ministry of Justice relied on in Doga (see §§16, 29), relied on in the April 2025 Further Information in this case, and twice served in this case.