Spitans v Riga Regional Court

For conduct to qualify as an extradition offence under section 64(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the conduct described in the warrant must necessarily constitute a criminal offence in the United Kingdom if committed there. It is insufficient that the conduct gives rise to a possible or likely inference of criminality. A court may read separate allegations in the warrant together, but it must not interpolate material conduct that is not particularised. Where the particulars support more than one inference, and only one would establish the corresponding UK offence, the statutory requirement is not met.

The claimant appealed against an extradition order made by District Judge Zani concerning two offences under section 253(1) of the Criminal Law of Latvia. The first concerned possession of drugs with intent to distribute. The second concerned the use of marijuana, heroin and amphetamine without medical designation. The first offence was accepted to satisfy section 64(2) of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issue was whether the conduct alleged in the second charge would constitute an offence under UK law, particularly possession contrary to section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

1. The appeal succeeded in relation to charge 2. The extradition order stood in relation to charge 1. The claimant’s separate appeal on human-rights grounds, which was not advanced, was dismissed.

2. Under section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge had to decide whether each offence specified in the Part 1 warrant was an extradition offence. Since the maximum Latvian sentence for charge 2 appeared to be two years, it did not satisfy the three-year threshold in section 64(2). The relevant question under section 64(3) was therefore whether the conduct alleged would constitute an offence under UK law if it had occurred in the United Kingdom.

3. Applying the approach identified in Mauro v Government of the United States of America [2009] EWHC 150 (Admin), the question was whether the conduct complained of, if proved, would constitute the relevant UK offence. The conduct in charge 2 could amount to possession of prohibited drugs under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 only if prior possession were established.

4. Hambleton v Cullinan [1968] 2 QB 427 established that metabolites or traces of consumed drugs found in urine did not prove possession at the time of testing. It also recognised that such evidence might support an inference of earlier possession. In this case, however, prior possession was not a necessary inference from charge 2. Administration by another person was a realistic alternative.

5. Although charge 1 alleged possession at the same prison and involved drugs of the same type, the period specified in charge 2 extended from 25 June 2007 to 4 January 2008. The allegations therefore did not make coincidence of the conduct inevitable. It was impermissible to interpolate unparticularised conduct into the warrant. Charge 2 consequently did not constitute an extradition offence under the Act.

• District Judge: District Judge Zani held that both offences were extradition offences under sections 64(2) and 64(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The court allowed the appeal concerning charge 2, while leaving the order standing for charge 1. The unadvanced human-rights appeal was dismissed.