Background
Dawid Lukasz Hojka was wanted for extradition to Poland under an accusation Extradition Arrest Warrant dated 29 January 2026. The warrant alleged that, during a group attack in Bielsko-Biala on 22 June 2025, Hojka inflicted blows and kicks, jumped on the victim’s head and body, and inflicted two stab wounds with a knife before setting fire to the flat where the victim’s body lay. The alleged injuries resulted in the victim’s death.
District Judge King ordered Hojka’s extradition on 21 May 2026. Hojka sought permission to appeal, arguing that the warrant did not adequately particularise his role in a multi-participant attack involving several mechanisms of injury. He challenged the warrant under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 and, consequentially, argued under section 10 that it did not sufficiently identify an extradition offence.
The Court’s Holding
Fordham J refused the renewed application for permission to appeal because neither proposed ground had a realistic prospect of success. The warrant specifically attributed conduct to Hojka: it alleged that he inflicted blows and kicks, jumped on the victim, and inflicted the stab wounds. Read as a whole, its references to Hojka by name, “his hands,” “the suspect,” and “he” made clear that the identified acts were alleged to be his own, even though he acted with others.
The particulars therefore satisfied section 2(4)(c) by explaining how Hojka allegedly participated and what he allegedly did. They also permitted the district judge safely to conclude under section 10 that the alleged conduct would constitute murder in the United Kingdom. The court found no reasonably arguable defect in the warrant and no reasonably arguable error in the district judge’s assessment.
Key Takeaways
- An extradition warrant concerning a group attack can provide legally adequate particulars by clearly attributing specific acts to the requested person.
- The phrase “acting jointly and in concert” did not create ambiguity where the warrant’s language, read holistically, identified Hojka’s own alleged conduct.
- Because the section 10 argument depended on the asserted section 2 defect, both proposed grounds failed once the particulars were found adequate.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how English courts assess the adequacy of offence particulars in an Extradition Arrest Warrant: the document is read fairly and as a whole to determine whether the requested person can understand the alleged role and conduct. A warrant need not be treated as generic merely because it describes a joint attack, particularly where it expressly sets out the requested person’s alleged acts.