King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas & Anor

Under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the conditions in sections 65(2) to (6) are alternative routes to establishing an extradition offence. Sections 65(3) to (6) are not confined to non-framework offences. The expression “the conduct” may mean the conduct occurring in the category 1 territory which constitutes an offence there, rather than every act forming part of wider transnational criminal conduct. This construction avoids excluding extradition for offences involving conduct in more than one country and gives practical effect to the statutory scheme and the European arrest warrant framework. A statutory time limit for hearing an appeal may be extended retrospectively where the interests of justice require it, including where otherwise the right of appeal would be nugatory.

The Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels appealed under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the discharge of Eddison Rodrigo Cando Armas by the Deputy Senior District Judge. Belgium sought his extradition under a certified Part 1 European arrest warrant following his conviction and sentence in absentia for offences including trafficking, participation in a criminal organisation and passport forgery.

The District Judge held that the offences fell within the European Framework List but that section 65(2) applied exclusively and was not satisfied because part of the alleged conduct occurred in the United Kingdom. She also held that section 65(3) required all the conduct to have occurred in Belgium. The central issue was whether sections 65(2) to (6) were mutually exclusive and how “the conduct” should be understood.

1. The court extended the relevant period for hearing the appeal under section 31 of the Extradition Act 2003. The statutory period had expired, but an extension was in the interests of justice because the delay had assisted the respondent and, without an extension, the appeal right would have been nugatory.

2. The absence of ticks in the English translation of the European arrest warrant did not prevent section 65(2)(b) from being satisfied. The relevant certificate was the original document issued by the appropriate Belgian authority, and the description of the offences showed that they included framework offences.

3. Sections 65(2) to (6) provide alternative routes by which conduct may constitute an extradition offence. The word “also” in subsections (3) to (6) does not make each subsection exclusive of the others. There was no express basis for limiting those subsections to non-framework offences.

4. In sections 65(2) to (6), “the conduct” should, where necessary to produce a workable result, be understood as such of the conduct as constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the category 1 territory. It need not mean every act forming part of the person’s wider criminal conduct. This interpretation accommodates trans-frontier offences and avoids the absurd result that a minor act in another country could prevent extradition for serious criminal activity principally occurring in the requesting territory.

5. The District Judge had therefore erred in treating section 65(3) as requiring all the alleged conduct to have occurred in Belgium. The case was remitted to her to determine whether the respondent’s criminal conduct occurred in Belgium and, accordingly, whether an extradition offence was established under sections 65(2) and (3).

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003 succeeded on the interpretation of section 65(3), and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Senior District Judge.
• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: the Deputy Senior District Judge discharged the respondent on 26 July 2004.