Mysiak, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1292 (05 August 2025)

Given the Crown's acceptance that the ammunition was not prohibited and that prosecution for the bail offence was not permitted under the extradition warrant, the convictions cannot stand and must be quashed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] EWCA Crim 1292
Parties: Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Thomasz Mysiak
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 August 2025
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Convictions
Outcome: Convictions quashed; extensions of time and leave to appeal granted.
Legal Topics: Appeal Against Conviction, Extension of Time, Extradition Act 2003, European Arrest Warrant, Prohibited Ammunition, Failure to Surrender to Bail

Criminal Law Extradition Law Appeal Against Conviction Extension of Time Extradition Act 2003 European Arrest Warrant Prohibited Ammunition Failure to Surrender to Bail

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Thomasz Mysiak

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Convictions

Legal Issues

1 Whether convictions for conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited ammunition and failure to surrender to bail should be quashed given new evidence and extradition law constraints
2 Whether extensions of time to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed; extensions of time and leave to appeal granted.

Orders

Extension of time to appeal granted for both convictions
Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited ammunition granted

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.