Veiss v Le Paelite Prosecutor General Office Republic of Latvia

On an extradition appeal, a tenable point of law requiring no new evidence may generally be raised for the first time, particularly where it concerns dual criminality. For dual criminality, the relevant comparison is between the conduct described in the warrant and the corresponding domestic offence. The conduct may satisfy the requirement if part of the conduct constitutes an offence in the United Kingdom, even though other aspects do not. Under section 64(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the 12-month punishment threshold applies to the conduct under the law of the requesting state. It is not necessary for the corresponding domestic offence also to carry a 12-month sentence.

Edgars Veiss appealed against District Judge Purdy’s order of 22 August 2011 that he be extradited to Latvia under a European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned two conviction offences and one accusation offence. The appeal ultimately concerned only the accusation offence: driving while under the influence of alcohol without a valid driving licence.

The claimant argued that the accusation offence failed the dual criminality requirement. The issue was whether the conduct described in the warrant, viewed as a whole or in part, constituted an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom and met the statutory punishment threshold.

1. Fresh point of law. The court allowed the dual-criminality argument to be raised despite its not having been taken below. Hoholm v Norway established that an extradition appeal should generally permit a point of law requiring no new evidence to be raised for the first time, particularly where there is a tenable argument that a statutory requirement is not satisfied. The failure to identify Rozakmens v Latvia below also supported allowing the point to be argued, since advocates for both sides have a duty to draw relevant authorities to the court’s attention.
2. Latvian alcohol offence. Following Rozakmens v Latvia, the court held that the alleged conduct did not correspond to the domestic offences under sections 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The court was bound by R v Hawkes to distinguish driving while under the influence of alcohol from driving while unfit through drink or drugs. Without the further argument based on Norris v Government of the USA, the appeal would therefore have succeeded.
3. Conduct under section 64. The court accepted the submission based on Norris v Government of the USA. The conduct specified in the warrant could be considered as a whole. It included driving without a valid licence, which constituted an offence in England, even if that was only part of the alleged conduct.
4. Punishment threshold. Section 64(3)(c) required the conduct to be punishable by at least 12 months’ imprisonment under Latvian law. It did not require the corresponding English offence also to carry a sentence of at least 12 months. Sections 64(4) and 64(5), which contain additional requirements, did not alter the construction of section 64(3).
5. The requirements of sections 64(1) and 64(3) were satisfied. The decision of District Judge Purdy was upheld for all three offences and the appeal was dismissed. Permission to appeal was not granted at the hearing, although the claimant was given 14 days to lodge a draft certified question. No wasted costs order was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Veiss v Le Paelite Prosecutor General Office Republic of Latvia [2012] EWHC 2460 (Admin) upheld the extradition order and dismissed the appeal.
• District Judge: District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 22 August 2011 under the European arrest warrant.