Kechedzhiev v Gdansk Regional Court, Poland

For dual criminality, the mens rea of the equivalent English offence may be inferred from the conduct alleged in a European Arrest Warrant where it is the only reasonable inference or is necessarily implied. Multiple offences must be considered separately, but each may be read in the context of the warrant as a whole where the conduct forms a connected pattern.

For proportionality under the Extradition Act 2003, family hardship and children’s best interests are important factors, but the consequences of interference with Article 8 rights must be exceptionally serious before they outweigh the strong public interest in extradition. Fugitive status may reduce the weight of private and family life acquired in the United Kingdom.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court’s decision directing his extradition to Poland for prosecution on six alleged offences.

Limited permission was granted on whether two charges satisfied the dual-criminality requirement. The claimant also renewed an Article 8 challenge based on his partner’s subsequent pregnancy. Two further grounds concerning the issuing judicial authority and Article 6 were stayed for determination in other proceedings. The central issues were whether the relevant charges were extradition offences and whether extradition had become disproportionate in light of the new family circumstances.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The necessary intention to control prostitution could be inferred where it was the only reasonable inference from, or necessarily implied by, the conduct alleged. The offences in the warrant described deliberate driving of women to and from places where prostitution occurred, together with other conduct indicating a continuing supervisory role.

2. The requirement under the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003 to consider each offence separately was not breached. Charges I and III could be assessed individually while still being read in the context of the European Arrest Warrant as a whole. The charges formed part of a continuum or pattern of conduct, and charges I to IV could, as a matter of English law, have formed part of one indictment count. The court did not need to decide whether the claimant’s oral admissions could independently have supplied the necessary basis.

3. For section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, control retains its ordinary meaning. It does not require coercion or force and may be exercised by instructing or directing another person.

4. Ground 2 dismissed. The court reconsidered proportionality in light of the pregnancy. The new material increased the likely emotional and financial hardship, but changed its degree rather than its nature. The relevant factors remained the seriousness and recency of the alleged offending, the public interest in fulfilling extradition obligations, mutual confidence in the requesting judicial authority, the claimant’s fugitive status, the establishedness of his family life, the children’s interests, and the likely hardship caused by separation.

5. The consequences of extradition were not exceptionally serious. The family could receive state financial assistance, and the partner had possible relocation options. Her evidence did not establish significant health problems materially affecting the balancing exercise. The strong public interest in extradition therefore outweighed the Article 8 consequences.

6. The appeal was dismissed insofar as it concerned Grounds 1 and 2. Grounds 3 and 4 remained to be determined.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal on Grounds 1 and 2. Grounds 3 and 4 were stayed and remained undetermined.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Radway directed extradition on 12 December 2019.