Hall v Government of Germany

A Part 1 warrant under the Extradition Act 2003 need not reproduce the statutory wording verbatim. It must, however, contain the substance of the information required by section 2. Section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of the provision of the category 1 territory’s law under which the alleged conduct constitutes an offence. A description of the offence and identification of a framework-list offence do not satisfy that requirement without identifying the applicable legal provision. Failure to provide the required information means that the warrant is not a valid Part 1 warrant and the extradition order must be quashed.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a decision of District Judge Workman ordering his extradition to Germany under section 21. Germany was a category 1 territory. The European arrest warrant described the alleged cocaine-importation and trafficking offences and identified illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as a framework-list offence, but did not identify the relevant provisions of German law.

The central issue was whether the warrant contained the information required by section 2(4)(c) of the 2003 Act.

1. Appeal allowed. The warrant was quashed and the claimant was ordered to be discharged pursuant to section 27(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. A warrant need not slavishly follow the language of section 2. It must nevertheless contain the substance of the information required by the statute. Although extradition legislation should generally be construed to facilitate extradition, caution is required where the statute lays down specific matters that must appear in the warrant.
3. Section 2(4)(c) expressly required particulars of any provision of German law under which the alleged conduct constituted an offence. The warrant’s description of the legal classification of the offence, together with its identification as a framework-list offence, did not provide those particulars.
4. The court followed the approach in Hunt v The Court At First Instance, Antwerp, Belgium [2006] EWHC 165 Admin. There was no material distinction between that case and the present case. The failure to comply with section 2 meant that the warrant was not a Part 1 warrant.
5. The second argument, concerning the absence of information about the place of the alleged offence, did not require determination. The court indicated, without deciding the point, that the argument appeared to have substantial force.

The claimant appealed to the Divisional Court under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the extradition order made by District Judge Workman at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 23 December 2005. The appeal was allowed, and the extradition order was quashed.