Wars v Lublin Provincial Court, Poland

For dual criminality under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must examine the conduct described in the European arrest warrant, rather than require equivalence between the foreign and domestic offences. The description must identify conduct which would amount to an offence in the United Kingdom, but it need not satisfy the level of specificity required in a domestic indictment. Driving while in a state of inebriation was sufficient to establish conduct which would amount to driving while unfit through drink under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appeal was dismissed.

The claimant appealed against Senior District Judge Riddle’s order dated 20 April 2011 directing his surrender to Poland under a European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned a four-year sentence imposed after convictions for domestic burglary and driving on a public road while in a state of inebriation.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the driving conduct described in the warrant satisfied the dual-criminality requirement in section 65(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003; and, if not, whether the aggregate sentence nevertheless satisfied the minimum-sentence requirement for the burglary offence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that dual criminality is assessed by reference to the conduct specified in the warrant, not by comparing the foreign offence with an equivalent domestic offence. This approach was supported by Mauro v Government of the United States of America [2009] EWHC 150 (Admin) and Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67.

2. The warrant described the conduct as driving while in a state of inebriation. That meant driving while drunk. If a United Kingdom court were satisfied that a person had driven while drunk, it would inevitably conclude that the person was unfit to drive through drink. The conduct therefore constituted an offence under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, satisfying section 65(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.

3. The court distinguished Rozakmens v Judicial Authority of Latvia [2010] EWHC 3500 (Admin) and R v Hawkes (1931) 22 Cr App R 172. Those authorities concerned driving under the influence of alcohol and an earlier statutory definition requiring proof that proper control was impaired. The present warrant alleged driving while inebriated, namely drunk, rather than merely driving under the influence.

4. Having resolved the first issue, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether the aggregate sentence satisfied section 65(3)(c). Lord Justice Aikens agreed with Mrs Justice Swift’s reasons.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — appeal from Senior District Judge Riddle’s order of 20 April 2011 dismissed.