Enander v Governor of Brixton Prison & Anor

The expression “judicial authority” in section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 must be interpreted in the light of the European arrest warrant Framework Decision which the legislation implemented. Article 6 left each member state to designate its own issuing judicial authority. Once that designation had been validly made and notified, the executing state was required to recognise it. The executing court was not required to investigate whether the issuing body exercised a function that would be regarded as judicial under domestic law. Such an inquiry would undermine mutual trust, co-operation and the efficacy of the European arrest warrant scheme.

The applicant sought habeas corpus after his arrest in England under a European arrest warrant issued by the Swedish National Police Board. The warrant concerned a Swedish conviction and sentence, and had been certified under section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003.

The central issue was whether the Swedish National Police Board, acting through its designated officer, was a “judicial authority” for the purposes of section 2(2), or whether the English court had to determine whether the issuing body possessed judicial characteristics under domestic law.

1. The application was rejected. The Swedish National Police Board was a validly designated issuing judicial authority, and the warrant was valid.
2. Section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 could not be construed in isolation. Part 1 of the Act was enacted to implement the Framework Decision, and the Framework Decision was therefore an important aid to construction.
3. Articles 6(1) to 6(3) of the Framework Decision left each member state to designate, under its own law, the competent issuing judicial authority. That arrangement supported mutual recognition, trust and co-operation between member states.
4. The executing state was not required to examine whether the issuing authority would be regarded as judicial under English domestic law. Requiring such an inquiry would create uncertainty, practical difficulty and delay, and would undermine the efficacy of the statutory scheme.
5. Sweden had designated the Swedish National Police Board as the authority competent to issue warrants concerning persons already convicted after judicial trial. The authority had delegated the function to the officer who issued this warrant.
6. The court derived little assistance from section 202(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965, or R v Bow Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Van der Holst [1986] 83 Cr App R 114.

The respondents were awarded their costs. The parties were to give effect administratively to the earlier costs order in favour of the applicant.