Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
�milie Pottle (instructed by ITN Solicitors) for the Appellant Stefan Hyman (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Respondent Hearing date: Thursday 17 March 2022 ____________________
ii) A description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person:
"18� What is needed in all cases is sufficient information to enable any mandatory or optional bar contained in Article 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision to be considered whether by the authority in the executing state or the requested person"
"I do not believe that the particulars required whether for an accusation or a conviction warrant need great detail. As I have said, provided they give sufficient information to enable any available point on a bar to be taken and the ability to judge whether the offence is properly listed in the framework list and dual criminality can be shown if that should be needed, they will suffice whether for accusation or conviction cases"
"In response to the request in the e-mail, I shall kindly inform that that the period when the alleged offence under art. 59 section 1 and 2 of the Act of July 29, 2005 was committed by Mr. Piotr Ziembinski was given on the basis of testimonies of a person who was buying narcotic drugs from him. The witness testified that that he had been buying narcotic drugs from spring 2009 until June 16, 2010."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.