| EXTRADITION — European arrest warrant — Validity — European arrest warrant issued by requesting state — Subsequent European arrest warrants issued in respect of same offences — Evidence of earlier warrants not set out in current warrant — Whether failure to refer to previous European arrest warrants invalidating current warrant — Extradition Act 2003 (c 41), s 2(4)(b) — Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, art 8(1)(c)
(1) Louca v Office of Public Prosecutor in Bielefel, Germany; [2008] WLR (D) 373
(2) Kaba v Creteil Court of First Instance, France
QBD: Dyson LJ, Pitchford and Gross JJ: 27 November 2008
The requirement in s 2(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 that a European arrest warrant (EAW) contained “particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person’s arrest in respect of the offence” did not mean the particulars of any other EAWs that might previously have been issued in respect of the offence in the current EAW.
Dyson LJ, giving the judgment of the Divisional Court, so held in dismissing two appeals: (1) Anastasis Louca, who appealed under s 26 of the 2003 Act, against an extradition order made on 11 September 2008 by Senior District Judge Workman, ordering his extradition to Germany; and (2) Sekou Kaba, who appealed under s 26 of the Act against an extradition order made by Senior District Judge Workman on 24 June 2008, ordering his extradition to France.
Each appeal was based on the ground that the EAW, on which the order was founded, did not comply with s 2(4)(b) of the 2003 Act, in that each warrant failed to contain particulars of earlier EAWs issued and certified in respect of the same offences.
DYSON LJ said that the 2003 Act had to be interpreted in conformity with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and, in particular, art 8(1)(c), which addressed content and form of the EAW. On its proper construction art 8(1)(c) required the EAW to contain evidence of an enforceable judgment, arrest warrant or other enforceable judicial decision on which the EAW was based. Had it been intended that the EAW should contain evidence of any previous EAWs in respect of the same offence(s) it would have been simple to say so in the Framework Decision. There was no reason for holding that art 8(1)(c) required an EAW to contain evidence of any earlier EAWs on which it was not based. But art 8(1)(c) did require an EAW to contain evidence of an enforceable judgment, arrest warrant or any other enforceable judgment on which it was based. Accordingly, the challenges to the EAWs in both cases on the ground that they failed to refer to previous EAWs failed. There was no obligation on the part of the requesting state to include evidence of the previous EAWs in either case. They correctly included evidence of the domestic decisions on which the EAW was based. The interpretation given to section 2(4)(b) in Jaso v Central Criminal Court No 2, Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin) was wrong.
|
Appearances: John Jones (Cartwright King) for Mr Louca; Rosemary Davidson (Lawrence & Co) for Mr Kaba; Daniel Jones (Crown Prosecution Service, Ludgate Hill) for the Office Public Prosecutor in Bielefel, Germany; Amy Mannion (Crown Prosecution Service, Ludgate Hill) for Cretail Court of First Instance, France.
|
