Parasiliti-Mollica v The Deputy Public Prosecutor of Messina Italy

A European arrest warrant need not reproduce statutory wording verbatim or delete an irrelevant alternative, provided the warrant as a whole makes the applicable ground sufficiently clear. Extradition documents must be carefully scrutinised because they engage personal liberty, but technical objections should not defeat a warrant where they serve no useful purpose. The warrant must also provide adequate particulars of the alleged conduct and the requested person’s degree of participation. A description of the person as a co-author in complicity with an armed organisation can sufficiently identify that role.

The claimant appealed against a District Judge’s order of 18 November 2002 requiring his extradition to Italy. The extradition request was based on a European arrest warrant issued by the Italian prosecuting authorities. He challenged the warrant because its introductory wording left alternative purposes undeleted and because it did not sufficiently describe his role in the alleged drug-trafficking conspiracy. The issues were whether the warrant satisfied sections 2(3) and 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, read consistently with the Framework Decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant was valid and the District Judge’s extradition order stood.

2. Extradition procedures must be strictly scrutinised because they authorise interference with liberty. Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 should be interpreted consistently with the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, while avoiding technical objections that serve no useful purpose.

3. The undeleted alternatives in the warrant were not fatal. Read as a whole, references to the remand in custody order, the pre-trial investigation judge, the prosecution wording and the claimant’s alleged flight made clear that the warrant concerned prosecution. The suggestion that it concerned investigation alone was speculative.

4. Section 2(4)(c) was satisfied. The warrant described the organisation, the narcotics, the relevant places and period, and the claimant as a co-author in complicity with the organisation. That sufficiently identified his alleged role.

5. A later document stating expressly that the claimant was sought for trial was not used to interpret the warrant. The court nevertheless observed that the expense and delay could have been avoided by including that clarification. Certification of a point of public importance under section 32 was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order of 18 November 2002 dismissed: [2005] EWHC 3262 (Admin).