Tomcik v District Court in Okresny (Slovakia)

European Arrest Warrants must accurately identify the offence charged. A requesting authority cannot select a list entry describing a materially more serious offence merely because the actual offence is absent from the framework list.

Where an inaccurate warrant has misled the courts and materially aggravated the apparent seriousness of the case, extradition may constitute an abuse of process. In an accusation case, proportionality under the Extradition Act 2003 requires consideration of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the person’s Convention rights. The warrant’s defects may be considered together with a strong family-life claim under Article 8.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Snow’s order of 1 April 2015 requiring his surrender to Slovakia for an alleged drug offence.

The European Arrest Warrant identified the offence as illicit trafficking. Further information from the Slovak prosecutor clarified that the appellant was charged only with possession for personal use under section 172(1)(d) of the Criminal Code of the Slovak Republic. The appellant also relied on the likely sentence, the proportionality provisions of section 21A, and the effect of extradition on his partner and young children. The central issues were whether the warrant was defective, whether extradition would abuse the court’s process, and whether surrender would be proportionate.

1. Appeal allowed. The warrant inaccurately identified the alleged offence as trafficking, although the appellant was prosecuted only for possession for personal use. The Slovak authority had selected a more serious framework-list offence because the actual offence was not included in the list.
2. The European Arrest Warrant system depends on mutual trust and accurate identification of the relevant offence. Selecting a list entry for a materially more serious offence is impermissible. It produces an untrustworthy warrant and undermines the basis of the system.
3. The inaccurate warrant had misled both the District Court and the Divisional Court, causing the case to be assessed as considerably more serious than the charge actually pursued. In the circumstances, extradition on that warrant would amount to an abuse of process.
4. Section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 required consideration of whether extradition was compatible with Convention rights and whether it was disproportionate. The seriousness of the alleged conduct and the likely penalty were relevant factors. Practice guidance concerning possession of controlled substances did not provide the sole test.
5. The appellant was a first offender, possessed a relatively small quantity for personal use, and faced a Slovakian minimum sentence substantially exceeding the sentence likely in England. His partner suffered from depression and was unable to work, while he cared for their very young children. The strength of the Article 8 claim and the Slovak authorities’ conduct concerning the warrant, taken together, made extradition disproportionate.
6. The appellant was entitled to the usual costs order for expenses incurred in attending the lower court and the High Court.

• District Court: District Judge Snow ordered surrender on 1 April 2015.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was allowed.