Palar v Court of First Instance Brussels

A Part 1 European Arrest Warrant must particularise the conduct alleged to constitute the offence. The extradition court assesses the description of conduct, not the sufficiency of the evidence, but must be satisfied that the description is fair, accurate and reasonably capable of constituting the offence relied on. European co-operation and comity support a broad construction of the statutory scheme, as recognised in In Re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320, but they do not displace the statutory requirement. Conduct attributed only to others cannot, without more, satisfy the requirement for the person sought. A warrant failing that test cannot support extradition.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Evans's decision at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 22 March 2005 ordering his extradition to Belgium under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The warrant alleged credit-card fraud, forgery and participation in a criminal association. The central issue was whether it particularised conduct by the appellant capable of constituting the extradition offences, or instead required inference from the conduct of other suspects and brief references to telephone conversations.

Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Laws gave the judgment, with Mr Justice David Steel agreeing.

1. A Part 1 warrant must contain particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute it, under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. That requirement is a prerequisite to a proper Part 1 warrant.
2. Where the description of conduct is challenged, the court does not conduct an inquiry into evidential sufficiency. It must nevertheless examine whether the description is fair and accurate and whether the conduct described is capable on its face of constituting the alleged offence. The approach in Castillo v the Kingdom of Spain and the Government of HM Prison Belmarsh [2004] EWHC (Admin) 1676 was applied.
3. The duties of co-operation and comity, and the broad and generous construction recognised in the dictum cited from In Re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320, could not justify treating the conduct of other suspects as sufficient where no allegedly criminal conduct by the appellant himself was specified.
4. The warrant described withdrawals by others, copied card data, the appellant's relationship to another suspect and alleged telephone conversations. It did not describe conduct by the appellant reasonably capable of constituting the offences. A certificate or purported certificate under section 64(2)(b) could not cure that defect.
5. The extradition orders were quashed and the appellant was discharged under section 27(5). A costs order was made in the appellant's favour under section 61(5).

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal, quashed the extradition orders and ordered the appellant's discharge under the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Bow Street Magistrates' Court: District Judge Evans ordered extradition to Belgium on 22 March 2005 under section 21(3) of the Act.