We represented our client in extradition proceedings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, following a request from the Polish authorities to enforce a five-month sentence imposed in his absence for drug driving and possession of a small quantity of drugs.

The request, made by a Polish District Court, related to allegations of drug driving and possession of 0.3 grams of a cannabis and amphetamine mix.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) represented the requesting Judicial Authority throughout the proceedings. Our client did not consent to extradition and remained on conditional bail throughout the proceedings.

Opposing Extradition

We opposed extradition on two key grounds:

• There was no dual criminality, as required under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to the drug driving matter. The level of amphetamine recorded in our client’s blood was 215.7 nanograms per millilitre. This falls below the UK legal limit of 250 nanograms per millilitre. As such, the conduct would not amount to an offence in this jurisdiction.

• Extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with our client’s private and family life under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.

As part of our preparation, we sought expert advice from Polish lawyer Katarzyna Dąbrowska of Pietrzak Sidor & Wspólnicy. She provided an expert report addressing how the offence of drug driving is quantified in Poland. However, we could not argue that our client had not committed an offence under Polish law. In light of this, the report was not served.

The Court’s Decision

The District Judge accepted our submissions on dual criminality. The Court found that section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003 had not been satisfied. This is because the alleged conduct must amount to a criminal offence in both the requesting country and the UK, known as “dual criminality.” In this case, the Judge found that the conduct would not be a criminal offence in the UK. As a result, it did not qualify as an “extradition offence”.

The Court then considered whether extradition for the remaining allegation of possession would be proportionate. The District Judge agreed with our submissions that extradition for possession of 0.3 grams of cannabis would be a disproportionate interference with our client’s Convention rights.

Outcome

The extradition warrant was therefore discharged, and the CPS did not appeal the decision.

Our client was represented by Solicitor, Kate Nichol and Trainee Solicitor Milena Rozhin, with David Williams of Five St Andrew's Hill instructed as counsel.