[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Vaganovs v Prosecutor General Office of the Republic of Latvia [2013] EWHC 1472 (Admin) (08 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1472.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1472 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		8 May 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of the District Judge whereby he directed the appellant's return to Latvia in order to serve sentences of imprisonment totalling three years and six months, which had been imposed for three offences: one of attempted theft, one of robbery and one of, what is described as consuming narcotic and psychotropic substances without position assignment.
2. There was no bar raised to extradition before the District Court, but in this appeal Miss MacKinnon has raised an argument based on section 10 of the Act, and that is that the offence described as "consuming narcotic and psychotropic substances" is not one which is properly an extradition offence. She accepts that it will make no practical difference in as much as the sentences are combined and cover all the offending. Therefore, if that offence is removed it will not directly affect the totality of the sentence, although I imagine it is a matter that could be raised before the court in Latvia when he is returned in order perhaps to persuade the court that they could knock something off the total of the sentence.
3. However, that is not a matter for me, it is a matter which possibly (and I say possibly because I do not know what the system in detail is) could be raised there because I am satisfied that the point made by Miss MacKinnon is a good point and the contrary has not been argued by Miss Hinton. It seems from the description that the offence in question was based upon the obtaining of a urine sample and it was said that this showed that he had consumed the substances in question. It is not necessary to know the precise details of what they were. There is no question but that so far as this country is concerned that would not be an offence. It might justify possibly, in certain circumstances, a charge of possession over a particular period, but that is not the offence which is being provided for by Latvian law. That offence, as I say, is based entirely upon the fact of the alleged consumption of a substance.
4. I am told by Miss MacKinnon that there is a decision of this court to the same effect in relation to the same offence in another case from Latvia. I am entirely satisfied that is correct. No other ground has been raised or relied on, and Miss MacKinnon has had the opportunity of a detailed inquiry from the appellant, and I have no doubt that he has had explained to him, and he knows, why no other matter can properly be raised.
5. Before parting from this case I should raise one other matter: there is a very unfortunate background so far as legal representation is concerned. It seems that the notice of appeal was submitted from the prison with the assistance, no doubt, of the prison service. It sets out matters which do not, on the face of them, and cannot give rise to any proper basis for allowing the appeal. It seems that the first notice was lodged through a firm of solicitors, Sharma Law, on 1 March. They apparently paid the relevant fee. A second notice was subsequently lodged on 4 March by Kaim Todner. It seems that legal representation was granted by the court to Kaim Todner on 12 March and so the Sharma Law apparent representation was not proceeded with, so far as the court was concerned. But there were two firms of solicitors who apparently remained on the record, so far as the appellant was concerned.
6. The court corresponded with each on 3 April. It seems that Kaim Todner were informed that the legal representation was granted to them originally in error, because it was overlooked that Sharma Law had submitted the first notice of appeal. There is then what I can, I am afraid, only describe as an unseemly battle between the two firms as to which the appellant wished to represent him. The appellant, I am afraid, did not help by indicating, from time to time, that he wanted one and then he wanted the other to represent him. This morning apparently he has come down in favour of Kaim Todner. Indeed it seems that it was Miss MacKinnon who spotted the point, which is the only point I have regarded as a proper basis upon which an appeal can be allowed in part.
7. As I say, the battle between the solicitors is, I am afraid, not to the credit of either of them. They should have sorted out at a much earlier stage which one was to be the solicitor on record. However, as I say, I am satisfied that the offence in relation to the narcotic and psychotropic substances is not an extradition offence and therefore extradition for that offence must be set aside. Of course the extradition will continue and the appeal will be dismissed in relation to the other two offences of robbery and attempted theft.
8. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: What about costs, so far as who is going to be granted legal aid?
9. MISS MACKINNON: My application will be for costs for Kaim Todner, having taken instructions, and for the work done prior to today. The legal aid order technically, whether through error or otherwise, has been for Kaim Todner.
10. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: The legal aid order is certainly in your favour. The trouble is the appellant has not helped. Unfortunately it was an error. I am not obviously going to make the legal aid people pay for both of you to attend here. I think, in all the circumstances, the majority of the work seems to have been done by you and I am right, am I not, in indicating that it was you who spotted this point?
11. MISS MACKINNON: Yes, and Mr Coleman who acts for Kaim Todner as well.
12. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes, but it came from you?
13. MISS MACKINNON: It is not an issue that has ever been raised by Sharma Law, or identified by them. It was a 'no issues' hearing at the Magistrates' Court.
14. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Who represented them?
15. MISS MACKINNON: That was Sharma.
16. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: They did not take the point. They have not done anything really that deserves frankly to be recognised.
17. MISS MACKINNON: My learned friend points out, quite rightly, they did issue the notice of appeal.
18. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: They paid the fee. I think that has been refunded from what I understand.
19. MISS MACKINNON: I do not know whether it has or not.
20. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That is certainly my information. The note I have, which is from the court lawyer dated 17 April, does mean that Sharma Law Solicitors have paid the fee of £235, which is now in the process of being returned to them. Has Kaim Todner paid the fee?
21. MISS MACKINNON: They would have done to issue the appeal.
22. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: They must have paid the fee as well, I assume. What I shall direct then is, subject to Sharma Law having been paid back the fee, (as I say, I do not have any up-to-date information, that was nearly a month ago, and I assume that they have been repaid) that they must be if they have not been. Subject to that, you can have the usual legal aid order. I think in all the circumstances frankly Kaim Todner has done all the work.
23. MISS HINTON: May I please just raise one matter? If this case is to be published can I just simply state for the record that the section 10 point was not resisted by the respondent in this case, there being no evidence of sale in the detail of the warrant.
24. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: The warrant appears to indicate merely that he was charged because he had ingested, and I am told (I do not understand this to be disputed) that it was as a result of samples taken.
25. MISS HINTON: Yes, indeed, my Lord.
26. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That would not be an offence in this country as such. As I say, it might have possibly formed the basis of a possession charge.
27. MISS HINTON: My Lord, yes. Forgive me for raising it.
28. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You simply wanted it on record.
29. MISS HINTON: Yes, on record.
30. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: By all means. Thank you very much.