Kadre v Government of France & Anor

On an extradition request under the Extradition Act 1989, the court determines whether the conduct described in the request would constitute the relevant offence in the United Kingdom. It does not assess whether the evidence proves the facts, consider possible additional facts, or determine a defence. The requesting state must nevertheless describe the alleged conduct fairly and accurately where its accuracy is materially challenged. A conspiracy involving conduct abroad may constitute an extra-territorial offence under English law where the contemplated offence would occur in the United Kingdom. Allegations of bad faith require more than errors, omissions or selective emphasis in a complex request. The application was therefore dismissed.

Rabah Kadre applied for habeas corpus after being committed to await the Secretary of State’s decision on a French extradition request. France alleged that he participated in an Islamist network and a conspiracy to carry out an explosives attack in Strasbourg. The applicant relied on findings of a German court which had convicted four other men involved in related events but had not identified him as a conspirator.

The application raised whether the conduct described in the request sufficiently disclosed the English conspiracy offences identified by the requesting state, whether the alleged conduct could constitute an extra-territorial offence under English law, and whether the request was made in bad faith or failed fairly to describe the alleged conduct.

1. The application was dismissed. The court applied the statutory extradition scheme described in Re Evans. At the committal stage, the court considers the particulars of the offence and the conduct set out in the request. It does not investigate evidential sufficiency, possible additional facts or potential defences.
2. The request stated that Mr Kadre was involved in the planned attack, described his central role in the relevant network, identified supporting telephone and witness evidence, and linked him to munitions found at premises used by members of the Frankfurt group. That description was sufficient to raise the question whether, if the conduct had occurred in the United Kingdom, it would amount to the specified conspiracy offences.
3. Where the accuracy of a request is properly challenged, the court must ensure that the description of the alleged conduct is fair and accurate. The principle stated in Castillo concerned a basic misdescription of the alleged conduct. It did not permit the court to reconstruct the factual case by analysing the German findings and other material attached to the request.
4. English courts may assume jurisdiction over a conspiracy formed abroad to commit offences in the United Kingdom, even where no act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred here. The alleged Strasbourg target could therefore be transposed to England for the purpose of considering the English offences.
5. The German judgment concerned the narrower issue of the guilt of four men arrested in Frankfurt. It did not determine the wider conspiracy alleged by France. The omission of Mr Kadre from the German findings, and possible errors or omissions concerning immaterial detail, did not establish that the French accusation was not made in good faith in the interests of justice under section 11(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 1989.

This was a first-instance decision of the Divisional Court of the Administrative Court on an application for habeas corpus following committal by a district judge.