Grabowski v Regional Court In Wloclawek, Poland

In extradition proceedings, dual criminality is assessed by examining the conduct described in the European Arrest Warrant, rather than seeking an equivalent foreign offence. The conduct must establish, to the criminal standard, that the corresponding offence could be committed in the United Kingdom. A description of driving while intoxicated does not necessarily establish unfitness to drive through drink. The inference must be inevitable or the only reasonable inference. The court may receive short, decisive fresh evidence where fairness and the circumstances justify doing so. Proportionality under Extradition Act 2003 s 21A is assessed by the specified statutory matters. Article 8 family-life consequences did not outweigh the public interest in extradition.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Purdy’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland following an uncontested hearing. The European Arrest Warrant alleged five offences arising from conduct in 2008: criminal damage, two offences involving taking and using a vehicle, and two drink-driving offences.

Before the Administrative Court, the appellant raised dual-criminality objections, proportionality under s 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, and Article 8 family-life rights. He also sought to adduce evidence not placed before the District Judge. The central issues were whether the conduct described in the warrant constituted extradition offences and whether extradition should nevertheless be refused.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The decision of District Judge Purdy was quashed. Extradition was refused for the 30 August 2008 drink-driving offence, but ordered for the other four offences.
2. Under s 64 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court examines the conduct described in the warrant, not the equivalent foreign offence. The conduct must satisfy the dual-criminality test to the criminal standard. Following Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] 2849 (Admin) and adopting the reasoning of Thomasz Lis v Regional Court in Rzeszow, Poland [2014] EWHC 3226 (Admin), the facts must compel the inference that the driver was unfit through drink; it is insufficient that such an inference is merely possible.
3. The first drink-driving allegation, expressed as driving while intoxicated, did not establish unfitness to drive. The clarified blood-alcohol reading was also below the United Kingdom statutory limit. The fifth allegation did satisfy dual criminality because its clarified reading was equivalent to driving above the prescribed limit.
4. The taking-and-driving allegations satisfied dual criminality. Read as a whole, the warrant clearly implied that the vehicles were taken without the owner’s consent. The relevant English offence was s 12 of the Theft Act 1968.
5. Short explanatory evidence was admitted. It was capable of resolving the issue, an explanation existed for its absence below, and receiving it did not require a full rehearing. The appellant’s statement was excluded because no proper application was made and there was no adequate explanation for its late production.
6. Extradition was proportionate under s 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. The offences fell outside the minor categories identified in Part 17A of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The Article 8 family-life interference was accepted but proportionate to the strong public interest in honouring extradition obligations.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 14 August 2014 District Judge Purdy ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland after an uncontested hearing.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The decision was quashed. Extradition was refused for the third offence and ordered for the other four offences.