Muizarajs, R (on the application of) v The Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia

In extradition proceedings, conduct described in a European arrest warrant must make the corresponding domestic offence a necessary inference; a possible or likely inference is insufficient. A warrant alleging drug consumption and later intoxication does not establish prior possession without particulars showing how possession arose, and the court cannot supply unparticularised conduct. In the Article 8 proportionality exercise, seriousness may be assessed by comparing the conduct with the spectrum of criminal behaviour, without second-guessing the requesting state’s sentencing. Section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 is a floor, not a ceiling. The court must balance all relevant circumstances, including an activated suspended sentence and restrictions imposed by extradition bail.

The appellant challenged a Westminster Magistrates’ Court decision ordering his extradition to Latvia. Two European arrest warrants concerned accusations and convictions for supplying and using controlled drugs. The district judge discharged him in respect of the consumption offence in the accusation warrant, but ordered extradition on the remaining matters.

The appeal focused on whether the conviction warrant’s description of drug use established conduct which would necessarily constitute possession of controlled drugs in England and Wales. It also concerned whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s private life under Article 8, having regard to the activation of a suspended sentence, the likely Latvian sentences, delay and extradition bail restrictions.

Appeal allowed. The appellant was discharged in respect of all matters.

1. The description of offence 2 in EAW2 did not establish that possession of the cannabis or amphetamine was a necessary inference. The relevant approach in Hambleton v Callinan [1968] 2 QB 427 distinguished possession before consumption from mere traces remaining after consumption. Spitans v Riga Regional Court [2012] EWHC 472 confirmed that a possible or likely inference was insufficient and that the court could not interpolate conduct which the warrant did not particularise.
2. The warrant stated that the date, time and place of use were not exactly identified. It did not show that the smoking was observed by the police or anyone else, nor how the appellant had possessed the amphetamine. The district judge should therefore have discharged the appellant on offence 2 in EAW2. The failure to take that matter into account also flawed the Article 8 assessment.
3. The activation of the five-year suspended sentence following the consumption conviction was a relevant factor in the proportionality exercise. The seriousness of the conduct had to be assessed by comparison with the spectrum of criminal behaviour, not by comparing Latvian sentencing with the sentence an English court would impose. That approach was supported by H(H) v The Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 and applied in Lipski v Regional Court in Poland & Anor [2020] EWHC 1257 (Admin).
4. For the accusation warrant, section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 required consideration of both the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the likely penalty. The guidance under section 2(7A) was a floor rather than a ceiling. Extradition could therefore be disproportionate after a holistic Article 8 assessment even where it was not disproportionate under the guidance alone.
5. The appellant’s electronically monitored curfew was a legitimate factor in the Article 8 balance, even though it might not be deductible from a Latvian sentence. The approach in Einikis v Lithuania [2014] EWHC 2325 (Admin) was applied, and a similar approach was noted in Prusiano v Romania [2022] EWHC 1929 (Admin). Weighing those matters against the public interest in extradition and the need to prevent the jurisdiction becoming a safe haven, extradition in respect of offence 1 in both warrants was strikingly disproportionate.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted by Dove J on 20 October 2021. In [2022] EWHC 2751 (Admin), the appeal was allowed and the appellant was discharged in respect of all matters.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 1 March 2021, the district judge discharged the appellant in respect of offence 2 in EAW1 but ordered extradition on the remaining matters.