Cichowicz v District Court in Bydgoszcz

In extradition proceedings, the inevitable inference test applies where the foreign offence lacks an ingredient essential to criminal liability under English law. The court must then be satisfied that the alleged facts make the additional English-law ingredient the only reasonable inference. This differs from a case where the foreign offence contains the necessary ingredient but the warrant gives insufficient particulars; there, an inference may properly be drawn if the information is capable of supporting it.

Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, proportionality requires consideration of the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty and the possibility of less coercive measures. The court must assess the likely sentence on the evidence before it.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge King’s order of 26 September 2023 for his extradition to Poland. The appeal concerned arrest warrant number 2 and two accusations: use of a forged identity document and causing serious bodily injury by stabbing.

The appellant challenged the dual-criminality requirement under sections 10 and 64 of the Extradition Act 2003. He also challenged the proportionality of extradition in relation to the identity-document offence, including under section 21A. The central issues were whether the particulars supported the necessary mental element for the alleged wounding, and whether extradition for the identity offence would be disproportionate.

1. The appeal succeeded in relation to the stabbing accusation. The issue was whether the alleged conduct amounted to an extradition offence under section 64(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Following Cleveland, the inevitable-inference test applies where a required element of the corresponding English offence is absent from the foreign offence. Article 9(2) of the Polish Criminal Code permitted liability where the prohibited act resulted from failure to exercise due care, even where the possibility of the act could have been foreseen. On the available evidence, that provision did not correspond to the intent or recklessness required for an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, still less section 18.
3. The particulars of the stabbing were too exiguous to establish that intent or recklessness was the inevitable inference. They did not explain how the stabbing occurred, the nature of the tool, or what the appellant and victim were doing at the time. Extradition was therefore not ordered for that accusation.
4. Late information said to come from the Polish indictment was excluded. It was the requesting authority’s responsibility to provide the information necessary to establish extradition, and admitting it at that stage was not in the interests of justice.
5. The district judge had erred by treating the matter as involving a conviction warrant. The High Court nevertheless conducted the proportionality assessment afresh and reached the same result. The identity-document offence was serious, a substantial custodial sentence was highly likely, and the period already spent on remand did not outweigh the extradition interest.
6. Under section 21A, the specified proportionality matters were considered: seriousness, likely penalty and the availability of less coercive measures. The appellant’s Article 8 claim and proportionality challenge failed. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the false-identification offence.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2024] EWHC 1914 (Admin): appeal allowed in relation to the stabbing accusation and dismissed in relation to the false-identification accusation.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — District Judge King ordered extradition on 26 September 2023.