Fedorowicz v Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) [2022] EWHC 3088 (Admin) (02 December 2022)

Fedorowicz v Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) [2022] EWHC 3088 (Admin) (02 December 2022)

Section 45(7)(b) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 requires that at least one act or omission comprising the accused's participation in the group's criminal activities must have occurred in England and Wales; since none of the appellant's alleged acts occurred in Lithuania (proxy for England and Wales), the dual criminality requirement is not satisfied and extradition cannot lawfully proceed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3088 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Bartosz Fedorowicz; Respondent: Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; extradition order quashed; appellant discharged.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Dual Criminality, Participation in Organised Crime, Territorial Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Extradition Law Statutory Interpretation Dual Criminality Participation in Organised Crime Territorial Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bartosz Fedorowicz

Appellant

Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 45(7)(b) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 requires that at least one act or omission of the accused's participation occur in England and Wales for dual criminality under section 64 of the Extradition Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

Section 45(7)(b) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 requires that at least one act or omission comprising the accused's participation in the group's criminal activities must have occurred in England and Wales; since none of the appellant's alleged acts occurred in Lithuania (proxy for England and Wales), the dual criminality requirement is not satisfied and extradition cannot lawfully proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; extradition order quashed; appellant discharged.

Orders

  • Order for discharge of the appellant.
  • Order quashing the extradition order.