AC-2024-LON-003550 - [2025] EWHC 2831 (Admin)

Section 10 of the Act requires the court to consider whether the offences specified in the warrant are extradition offences. Section 10(2) provides:

“10 Initial stage of extradition hearing

…

(2)

The judge must decide whether the offence specified in the Part 1 warrant is an extradition offence.”

Section 65(3)(b) provides that the conduct in the arrest warrant for which extradition is sought must

“constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom if it occurred in that part of the United Kingdom.”

The test for dual criminality is conduct-based (Norris v USA [2007] EWHC 71 (Admin), paras 65, 91). It does not depend on an identity of offence. The dual criminality objection advanced by the appellant is to the second offence specified in case reference II K 779/12. The relevant domestic offence was found by the Judge to be handling stolen goods under Section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968. This provides:

“A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.”

The description of the offences in the arrest warrant is as follows (with the paragraphs numbered for ease of reference and as translated):

“on 24th February 2012 between 5.00 p .m. and 6.05 p .m. at 90 Bydgoska Street in Toruń, acting together and in concert with another person, having broken the plate protecting the entry to the staircase, and then having broken a wooden plate, he came to another door in which he had broken the lock and the hasp from the padlock and after that he came to the premises which were being decorated and he took therefrom, with the aim to misappropriate them, the following electro tools: two battery drivers of Macalister make, two glue mixers, three electric drills of Bosch, Macalister and Makita make, two small angle grinders of Bosch and Black&Decker make, big angle grinder, demolition and impact hammer of Macalister make, table saw of Macalister make, i.e. the property of a total value of 8,385.28 PLN to the detriment of Krzysztof Wawrzyn. [“Paragraph 1”]

- in the period from 25th to 27th February 2012 in Toruń he purchased the property in the form of welder for PCV pipes of Dedra make, angle grinder of flex type Back & Decker make of a total amount of 626.97 PLN, which was gained during the burglary to the flat at 90 Bydgoska Street in Toruń to the detriment of Krzysztof Wawrzyn.” [“Paragraph 2”]

The appellant’s essential submission is that the Judge erred in finding that the conduct amounted to a handling offence as the appellant is accused and convicted of being both thief and handler. The respondent submits that the Judge was “entirely correct” as there is a sufficient lapse of time between the theft and the handling of the stolen goods to render the conduct otherwise than in the course of stealing for section 22 purposes. This decision is one of hard-edged law. It is not a matter of the Judge’s discretion. Either the conduct amounts to an extradition offence or it does not. Nevertheless, this is how the Judge dealt with the issue at para 15:

“15.

I am satisfied so I am sure the second description in the AW under II K 779/12 does constitute an offence of handling stolen goods because Box E states that the RP and another burgled the premises on 24th February 2012. Later, between 25th and 27th February 2012, the RP bought items stolen in the burglary. The burglary was committed with another, but the RP then separately bought items stolen in the burglary either from the other person who stole them or from a third party. It is a separate offence.”