Spitans v Riga Regional Court, Latvia
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lloyd Jones J |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 472 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 18 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | CO/4757/2011 |
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 472 (Admin)
Court and Reference: Administrative Court
Judge:Lloyd Jones J
CO/4757/2011
Appearances:Mr R Jesurum (instructed by Lansbury Worthington Solicitors) for the Appellant. Mr D Sternberg (instructed by the CPS) for the Respondent.
Issue: Whether a European arrest warrant was sufficiently particularised to provide the necessary implication that the possession of drugs was unlawful.
Facts: The appellant's extradition was ordered on the basis of two charges relating to drugs. The first charge was accepted to be an extradition offence of possession with intent to supply drugs. The second charge alleged that after his arrest for the first charge, he was under the influence of drugs. The appellant appealed the extradition order relating to the second charge.
1 The appellant, Ruslans Spitans, appeals against the extradition order made against him by District Judge Zani on one ground. That is that the second offence contained in the warrant an offence of using a psychotropic substance, namely methamphetamine contrary to s253(1) of the Criminal Law of Latvia is not an extradition offence.
2 The point was not taken below and, as a result, the District Judge's ruling deals very briefly with the question as to whether this offence is an extradition offence. He simply records that it is and that the requirements of the statute are satisfied.
3 The background to the matter is that the surrender of Mr Spitans is requested by the Judicial Authority, the Riga Regional Court, Latvia, pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant in respect of an accusation of two offences. The first is possessing narcotic and psychotropic substances for the purposes of distribution. The second is using substances without a physician's designation. The warrant was issued on 5 October 2003 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 29 November 2010.
4 District Judge Zani found that the two offences were extradition offences under 64(2) and 64(3) respectively.
5 The warrant at box (e) describes two offences. The first offence is that which the District Judge refers to as possession with intent to supply of various quantities of drugs, which are specified in considerable detail, and ends with the words committed a criminal offence provided for in s253(1) of the Criminal Law.
6 It is accepted on behalf of the appellant that that is an extradition offence and there is no appeal in respect of that charge.
7 The second offence is described in the paragraph that follows in the following terms:
While being charged with administrative liability on 12 October 2007 for use of psychotropic substance methamphetamine without a physician's designation on 25 June 2007 repeatedly within one year without a physician's designation, in the place and time not precisely established during the pre-trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tamas Biri v High Court in Miskolc, Hungary
...those drugs (see Hambleton v Cullinan [1968] 2 QB 427) and so dual criminality is not satisfied in relation to this conduct (see Spitans v Riga Regional Court [2012] EWHC 472 (Admin)). b. She submits that the Respondent cannot rely on s 65(5) (Framework list offences) as showing that this c......
-
The King on the Application of Muizarajs v The Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia
...his possession can always be laid prior to the consumption.” 10 Hambledon was followed by Lloyd Jones J in Spitans v Riga Regional Court [2012] EWHC 472: “17. In the context of the present case, the question for consideration therefore is whether the conduct alleged in the warrant would nec......
-
Zbigniew Skiba v District Court of Legnica Poland
...a necessary inference that that is what the Polish authorities meant: see the decision of Lloyd Jones J (as he then was) in Spitans v Riga Regional Court [2012] EWHC 472 (Admin)). 7 However, I am not prepared to draw that inference, given the recent email from the Polish authorities saying ......