Skoczylas v Regional Court in Kielce, Poland

In an extradition appeal, an arrest warrant complies with section 2 where it provides sufficient information for the requested person to understand the allegations and prepare arguments against extradition. The required detail is assessed in context and does not necessarily require every specific date or further particulars where the offending periods, location, drug types, quantities and alleged recipients are identified.

An Article 8 challenge requires identification of an error in the lower court’s balancing exercise. Findings that appropriate care and assistance will be available, and that the requested person’s family member is not physically dependent on him, may justify extradition where the offences are serious and the requested person has absconded.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Blake’s decision of 28 November 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. The warrants concerned allegations of supplying, possessing and conspiring to supply controlled drugs, together with an outstanding custodial sentence.

He argued that the warrants lacked sufficient particulars under section 2, including details of the conviction, drug quantities and dates of alleged supply. He also relied on Article 8, particularly his mother’s ill-health and alleged lack of care and housing support. The issues were whether the warrants contained sufficient information and whether extradition was disproportionate.

1. Section 2 particulars. The warrants contained sufficient information to enable the appellant to understand the allegations and prepare arguments against extradition. The relevant offending periods and location were specified, as were the types and quantities of drugs and the persons to whom they were allegedly supplied. The challenge based on insufficient detail therefore failed.
2. Conviction information. The appellant had been present when convicted and therefore must have known the quantity involved. The absence of further particulars did not make the warrant non-compliant in the circumstances.
3. Article 8. The district judge had been entitled to find that Redbridge Social Services could provide the appellant’s mother with appropriate care and assistance, and that neither her ability to care for herself nor her medical condition made her physically dependent on the appellant. The further evidence did not undermine those findings.
4. The appellant had absconded and the offences were properly regarded as serious. He had not identified any error in the Article 8 balancing exercise. The court upheld the extradition order and dismissed the appeal.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Blake ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland on 28 November 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order upheld.