In a recent judgment, District Judge Turnock (DJ), sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court (WMC), discharged Mr G, a Polish national living in the UK, under s.10(3) EA 2003, i.e. due to a lack of dual criminality. The DJ also found that extradition would be disproportionate.
Mr G was sought to serve a cumulative sentence of 211 days’ imprisonment in respect of two convictions for offences of insulting a police officer and being in possession of cannabis in Poland.
The CPS argued that the conduct specified in the EAW amounted to an offence of wilfully obstructing a police officer, contrary to s.89(2) of the Police Act 2006. Following detailed defence submissions on the applicability of Wozniak [2022] 1820 (Admin) to Mr G’s case, the DJ found that there was a lack of clarity as to whether the words were said whilst the officer had been exercising lawful duties and/or whether the words actually made the officer’s duties more difficult. The DJ agreed that the ambiguity created a reasonable doubt that the CPS had proved all of the elements of wilful obstruction offence. In light of this, the DJ discharged Mr G under s.10(3) of the 2003 Act.
Finally, the DJ found that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with Mr G’s Article 8 rights. The DJ agreed that the remaining offences were not serious, would not attract a custodial sentence in the UK, and, originally, had not attracted a custodial sentence in Poland; these factors tipped the balance in favour of discharge.
Mr G was represented by Lucy Waterstone of 9BR. Lucy was instructed by Katy O’Mara of ITN solicitors.