Bartosz Fedorowicz v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania)

For the organised-crime participation offence, the territorial requirement is satisfied only if at least one act or omission comprising the accused person’s own participation takes place in England and Wales. It is insufficient that another participant carried out a relevant act there. In an extradition case, the conduct alleged against the individual must therefore include the necessary territorial connection when tested under the corresponding-circumstances requirement. A meeting or other conduct by co-participants in the relevant territory does not, by itself, bring wholly foreign conduct of the accused within the offence.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Lithuania in respect of alleged organised participation in the acquisition, storage and transportation of cannabis. The conduct attributed to him occurred in Poland. The Extradition Arrest Warrant also described a meeting and other conduct by alleged co-participants in Lithuania.

The District Judge ordered extradition, treating the Lithuanian conduct as sufficient to satisfy the territorial element of the domestic organised-crime offence. The appeal concerned the interpretation of section 45(7)(b) of the Serious Crime Act 2015, applied through section 64 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issue was whether the territorial requirement could be met by an act of another participant rather than by conduct of the person whose extradition was sought.

1. Appeal allowed. The appellant’s alleged conduct did not satisfy the dual-criminality requirement in section 64 of the Extradition Act 2003, and the appellant was entitled to discharge.
2. Section 45(7)(b) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 refers to the acts or omissions comprising the participation of the person said to have committed the offence. It requires at least one act or omission of that person’s participation in the organised crime group’s criminal activities to take place in England and Wales.
3. The alternative interpretation, under which any act of any participant in the group’s criminal activities could satisfy the territorial requirement, was inconsistent with the wording and structure of section 45. It would also introduce an indirect and uncertain test, extending the offence through the conduct of a different person.
4. For section 64(4)(b), the conduct alleged to have occurred in Lithuania was treated as occurring in England and Wales as a proxy. The appellant’s own alleged acts remained conduct in Poland. Since none of the participation alleged against him occurred in Lithuania, the section 64 requirement was not met, notwithstanding the Lithuanian meeting involving other alleged participants.
5. The allegation that the Lithuanian meeting involved discussion of a criminal plan was sufficiently clear, in context, to amount to an allegation of conspiratorial conduct. The appellant’s fallback argument on that point was rejected.
6. The court considered the Palermo Convention and the EU Framework Decision as reference points. They disclosed no dissonance requiring a different interpretation. The judgment was published because it decided a point of potential general interest in a public law case raising an issue of criminal law.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the District Judge’s extradition order was allowed. The court held that section 64 of the Extradition Act 2003 was not satisfied and ordered the appellant’s discharge. The discharge order was made after the Extradition Arrest Warrant and related alerts had been cancelled.
• District Judge Callaway: On 13 September 2021, extradition to Lithuania was ordered after the Judge treated conduct by a co-participant in Lithuania as sufficient for section 45(7)(b).