Vaganovs v Prosecutor General Office of the Republic of Latvia

An offence is not an extradition offence merely because foreign law treats conduct as criminal. The conduct must also satisfy the applicable requirements of Extradition Act 2003. Consumption of narcotic or psychotropic substances, proved only by a urine sample and without an allegation of possession or sale, was not an offence in the United Kingdom and therefore did not qualify. Extradition was set aside for that offence but continued for the other offences.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision ordering his return to Latvia to serve concurrent or combined sentences totalling three years and six months.

The sentences related to attempted theft, robbery, and consuming narcotic and psychotropic substances without an alleged sale or possession offence. The appellant relied on section 10 of the Act, arguing that the consumption offence was not an extradition offence. The respondent did not resist that argument, noting that the warrant contained no evidence of sale.

1. Appeal partly allowed. The offence described as consuming narcotic and psychotropic substances was not an extradition offence. Extradition for that offence was set aside.
2. Under section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003, the conduct relied upon must constitute an extradition offence for the purposes of English law. The foreign description of the offence was not determinative.
3. The alleged offence was based entirely on the fact that the appellant had consumed the substances, inferred from samples taken from him. Consumption alone would not constitute an offence in England and Wales. It might, in appropriate circumstances, support a possession charge, but possession was not the offence identified in the Latvian warrant.
4. The absence of a practical effect on the overall sentence did not prevent the court from determining the legal status of the individual offence. Any consequential argument about sentence was a matter for the Latvian court.
5. The appeal was dismissed in relation to robbery and attempted theft, and extradition continued for those offences. A usual legal aid order was directed in favour of Kaim Todner, subject to repayment of the fee paid by Sharma Law.

• District Judge: directed the appellant’s return to Latvia to serve sentences totalling three years and six months.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal in part under Extradition Act 2003, setting aside extradition for the consumption offence but dismissing the appeal concerning robbery and attempted theft.