Nur v Public Prosecutor

Under the Extradition Act 2003, the question whether an arrested person is the person named in a European Arrest Warrant must be determined at the initial hearing on the balance of probabilities. If identity is established, the issue is not ordinarily reconsidered at the extradition hearing. Any indirect Convention-rights argument was left unresolved. In any event, reopening may properly be refused where the person was represented, had the opportunity to raise identity earlier, and relies on information already known. An alleged impostor does not alter the question if the warrant was in fact issued for the person before the court. An appeal succeeds only if the statutory conditions requiring a different decision and discharge are met.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a decision of District Judge Evans at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 18 July 2005 ordering his extradition to the Netherlands under a European Arrest Warrant.

At the initial hearing, District Judge Workman decided under section 7 that the claimant was the person in respect of whom the warrant had been issued. The claimant had accepted that the name, date of birth and addresses in the warrant matched his own. At the later extradition hearing, he sought to reopen identity after producing information suggesting that an impostor might previously have attempted to use his identity. District Judge Evans refused to reopen the issue. The central question was whether that refusal was legally wrong and whether the statutory conditions for allowing the appeal were satisfied.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The identity issue fell to be determined at the initial hearing under section 7 of the Extradition Act 2003. Once identity had been decided affirmatively, the court was required to proceed under section 8. The statutory scheme assigned a different series of issues to the extradition hearing and did not contemplate a second determination of identity.
2. The court did not decide whether identity could be raised indirectly under section 21 by reference to Convention rights. That issue was unnecessary to the decision.
3. Even if there were power to reopen identity, District Judge Evans was entitled to refuse. The claimant had been legally represented, had an interpreter, and had the opportunity to raise identity at the initial hearing. The information later relied upon was known to him at that time. The decision was therefore well within the limits of discretion.
4. The material before the magistrates was more than sufficient to establish identity on the balance of probabilities. The claimant accepted that he had the same identifying details as the person named in the warrant. The possibility of an impostor did not change the fact that the warrant was issued in respect of the claimant, whether or not the Dutch authorities ought instead to have sought another person.
5. The approach in Savvas v the Government of Italy [2004] EWHC 123 (Admin) was consistent with and supported that conclusion. The conditions in section 27(3) were not met because the District Judge ought not to have decided the reopening question differently, and a different decision would not have required discharge. Section 27(4) was inapplicable.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Evans refused to reopen the identity issue and ordered extradition on 18 July 2005.
• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Workman determined at the initial hearing on 5 July 2005 that the claimant was the person named in the warrant.