Dawid Lukasz Hojka v Bielsko-Biala District Court (Poland)

For extradition particulars to be legally adequate, an arrest warrant must be read holistically. In a group attack, it is sufficient if it clearly attributes identifiable conduct to the requested person and enables him to understand his alleged role and the case he must meet. The gravity of the allegation does not relax that requirement. Where those particulars also permit the conduct to be safely identified as a domestic extradition offence, the consequential challenge under section 10 fails. A renewed permission application should be refused where no reasonably arguable defect or realistic prospect of success is shown.

The appellant sought renewed permission to appeal against DJ King’s order of 21 May 2026, which ordered his extradition to Poland. The proposed appeal challenged the finding that Box E of the Extradition Arrest Warrant contained legally adequate particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 and sufficient information to identify an extradition offence under section 10.

The central issue was whether, in a group attack involving several participants and mechanisms of injury, the warrant sufficiently identified the appellant’s own participation and the basis of his alleged criminal responsibility.

Renewed application for permission to appeal refused. The proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success. The section 10 issue was consequential and rose or fell with the section 2 issue.

1. The lower judge’s account of the law was detailed and careful. The appellant identified no misdescription or omission in that legal analysis. The challenge concerned only its application to the Extradition Arrest Warrant.
2. Section 2(4)(c) requires Box E to describe the time, place and degree of participation in the alleged offence. Read holistically, Box E identified the date, location and victim and attributed specific conduct to the appellant, including blows and kicks, jumping on the victim, and two stab wounds. The reference to acting with other participants did not make the account generic. The surrounding language connected the conduct to the appellant and enabled him to understand his alleged role and the case against him.
3. The gravity of the alleged killing did not dilute the requirement for legally adequate particulars. That requirement was plainly met. The conduct was sufficiently particularised to enable the court safely to identify the section 10 extradition offence, namely conduct which would constitute murder under UK law.
4. The respondent relied, as a fallback, on Kopycki v Poland [2012] EWHC 722 (Admin) and Pelka v Poland [2012] EWHC 3989 (Admin). Those authorities did not assist the appellant because the present warrant went further: it described the appellant’s precise involvement.

Permission to appeal was therefore refused on both linked grounds.

1. High Court (Administrative Court), Fordham J: refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court (Administrative Court), Mould J: refused permission to appeal on the papers.
3. District Judge: on 21 May 2026, DJ King ordered extradition to Poland in a 29-page judgment.