Nolan v HM Prison Holloway & Anor

For extradition committal, the evidence must disclose a prima facie case on each charge. Under Theft Act 1968, a document authorising or evidencing payment may be a valuable security, but that does not establish execution. Execution requires an act done to or in connection with the document; merely creating it, or putting its instructions into effect, is insufficient. A partially completed and unsigned payment authorisation will ordinarily not be executed. Where the evidence does not show either the document’s precise nature and effect or an act constituting execution, the committal decision is flawed and habeas corpus may be granted in respect of the affected charges.

Patricia Nolan was committed by District Judge Pratt at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court to await the Secretary of State’s order on a request for her extradition to the United States. She faced nine charges arising from an alleged investment fraud. Her habeas corpus application concerned charges 6 and 8, both alleging that she dishonestly procured the execution of a valuable security by deception, contrary to section 20(2) of the Theft Act 1968.

The issue was whether the evidence concerning a computer-generated wire-transfer record and a partly completed domestic wire request disclosed a prima facie case that each document was both a valuable security and executed.

The court granted the application concerning charges 6 and 8. Lord Justice Kennedy agreed with the leading judgment of Royce J.

1. Under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act, committal required evidence which, according to the law of England and Wales, would make a case requiring an answer at trial.

2. Section 20(3) of the Theft Act 1968 contains a broad definition of valuable security. Considering the documents together with the witnesses’ evidence about the transactions, each could be characterised as a document authorising or evidencing payment of money.

3. Execution was a separate requirement. Applying R v Kassim, execution did not mean giving effect to a document by carrying out its instructions. The statutory reference to making a valuable security did not mean that every created document was thereby executed.

4. The evidence did not establish execution. No act had been done to or in connection with the Schuster document which could constitute execution, and there was no direct evidence of its precise nature and effect. The Pascoe document’s relevant lower section was unsigned and blank.

5. The decision that charges 6 and 8 disclosed a prima facie case was fatally flawed. The application was granted in respect of those charges. Costs were payable from central funds, subject to assessment.

The judgment states that the application followed a committal decision by District Judge Pratt at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court. No citation for that decision is stated.