Convery v High Court of Rotterdam

Under the Extradition Act 2003, a warrant alleging conduct partly in a Category 1 territory and partly in the United Kingdom may nevertheless disclose an extradition offence under section 64(3). Section 64(3)(a) does not require all the conduct to have occurred in the requesting territory. The additional double-criminality requirement in section 64(3)(b) distinguishes that provision from section 64(2), which concerns framework-list offences and requires conduct occurring exclusively outside the United Kingdom. The High Court’s role in a Category 1 extradition is confined to applying the statutory requirements. It does not investigate the strength or good faith of the underlying foreign or domestic investigation.

The appellant challenged a district judge’s order extraditing him to the Netherlands under the Extradition Act 2003. The European arrest warrant alleged drug-export offences involving conduct in the Netherlands and, potentially, the United Kingdom.

The appellant argued that the statutory time limits had not been met and that conduct extending into the United Kingdom could not satisfy section 64(2) or section 64(3). The central issue was whether the alleged trans-frontier conduct could constitute an extradition offence under section 64(3).

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge had correctly found that the procedural and temporal requirements were satisfied. The High Court appeal was issued within time, and any need to extend the time for commencement of the appeal was properly dealt with, or could appropriately be dealt with in the interests of justice.
2. The court’s jurisdiction in a Category 1 extradition is limited. It must apply the statutory requirements, including identification, the extradition-offence requirement, statutory bars and Convention-rights compatibility. It has no power at this stage to investigate the quality, good faith or evidential strength of the underlying investigations.
3. Section 64(2)(a) requires that the relevant conduct occur in the Category 1 territory and that no part occur in the United Kingdom. The warrant’s reference to conduct in the Netherlands and/or the United Kingdom therefore could not be accommodated within section 64(2).
4. Section 64(3) has a different structure. Its requirement that “the conduct” occur in the Category 1 territory does not mean that every part of the conduct must occur there. Reading it otherwise would erase the distinction between sections 64(2) and 64(3). Where conduct occurs partly in the requesting territory and partly in the United Kingdom, section 64(3) may apply, subject to the requirements of double criminality and the relevant punishment threshold.
5. The reasoning was consistent with Cando Armas [2004] EWHC 2019 (Admin), which recognised drafting difficulties in applying the Act to trans-frontier offences. The offences alleged in the warrant therefore fell within section 64(3), and no arguable legal error had been shown.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: The district judge ordered extradition to the Netherlands on 6 December 2004.